Mom refuses c-section, loses daughter to foster care.
First, from a legal perspective, individuals have a right to informed consent and bodily integrity. In obstetrics, informed consent is a blurry concept since many hospitals perform obstetric procedures on laboring women without informing them of the evidence concerning those procedures or their risks. Perhaps this legal case illustrates how paternalistic hospitals can be with respect to pregnant women -- assuming that the hospital staff know best and that informed consent is unnecessary. Never mind that hospitals tend to be run with organizational efficiency, rather than patient interests, in mind. In this specific case, one obstetrician who tried to convince the mother to consent to a c-section concluded that she was not psychotic and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the c-section. It is clear within the law there is no informed consent without informed refusal, so this obstetrician's conclusion should have made V.M.'s refusal to consent to the c-section her decision alone. If this mother is not legally permitted to refuse major abdominal surgery, then she is clearly stripped of her civil rights to informed consent.
In fact, individuals are not legally required to consent to invasive procedures even to save other individuals, including fetuses that lack full legal status. But in this case the district and appellate courts subverted a pregnant woman's informed medical decision-making in the name of fetal rights, arguing that her refusal was a form of abuse and neglect of the child that had not yet been born. This is another dangerous precedent, along with other court-ordered cesarean cases, that will allow all pregnant women to lose their rights to bodily integrity and informed consent. It may be understandable, if not excusable, that the courts don't understand medicine or recognize that medical judgment is fallible, but it is hard to understand how they could so fundamentally misinterpret the law, in which performing surgery on an individual without that person's permission can constitute criminal "battery" under common law.
The court's opinion also suggests that lawmakers have no concept of what it is like to be in labor. Women in labor tend to find themselves on a different mental plane, where they have to focus inward and work with their bodies to give birth. As midwives know, some women become belligerent. Some seek privacy and seclusion. Most women in labor are likely to find the routine and usually unnecessary procedures of hospitals to be invasive and unwelcome. Yet the courts that decided this case didn't seem to be aware that women are unlikely to behave the same way when they are in labor as when they aren't. The decision cites hospital records that describe the mother, V.M., as "combative," "uncooperative," "erratic," "noncompliant," "irrational" and "inappropriate." Also, her husband indicated that the way she was acting was not her "normal manner and that she is not as 'tranquil.'" Why would anyone expect a woman in labor to be compliant, tranquil, or rational? What kinds of expectations does our society have for women undergoing a powerful physiological process, often with an absurd amount of poking, prodding and general interference? This mother was uncooperative with hospital staff, but clearly her uncooperativeness had nothing to do with the well-being of her baby. There is no reason to believe that she did not have the well-being her baby as her top priority, even though she was not a model patient. There is also no reason to believe that everything the hospital staff wanted to do was essential or even beneficial for the well-being of either mother or baby. In fact, typical obstetric care engages in many procedures that are unnecessary and often harmful, more out of habit and for the convenience of hospital staff than in the best interest of patients.
While the court opinion also focuses on the parents' psychiatric diagnoses (which are fallible medical judgments) and their history of care in determining their fitness as parents and abrogating their parental rights, their psychiatric state would never have been questioned if the mother had not refused invasive abdominal surgery -- which was entirely within her rights. The tragic consequence for this family was separation from their infant daughter from the moment of her otherwise uneventful vaginal birth. That kind of injustice can't have been good for the psyche.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/189649-Pregnant-Women-s-Civil-Rights-Violated-in-New-Jersey
~ Cindy
Mama to Reed and Jonas, wife to Rodney, Breastfeeding Peer Counselor, Student Midwife, doula, professionally trained baker, coffee addict, lactavist, birth junkie, born and raised in the San Francisco bay area, born-again Christian and attachment parenting mama! EuphoricBirthServices.com
Then I shall not tell you about the few cases were women were court-mandated to have c-section because someone believed they were "endangering the welfare of their child". One woman was arrested because she was having a vbac with a midwife at home.
Read Born in the USA by Marsden Wagner.
Quoting IloveLacey:
OMG I feel ill! That is just so WRONG!!
~ Cindy
Mama to Reed and Jonas, wife to Rodney, Breastfeeding Peer Counselor, Student Midwife, doula, professionally trained baker, coffee addict, lactavist, birth junkie, born and raised in the San Francisco bay area, born-again Christian and attachment parenting mama! EuphoricBirthServices.com
WHAT IN THE WORLD!!!!!!
Now I know why I will be rooming in with my baby!!! you're telling me that they would not even offer to have grandparents ADOPT the baby if the mother was deemed unfit???!!! that way the grandparents were to be responsible for the kid and mom would STILL get maybe even perhaps supervised visitation!!! but to keep her away from the kid for three years!!!
I also like that they do not seem to release all the details about the court case!
Just did a search on this case because it bothered me. Apparently, the were concerned about the moms mental stability. They set up a hearing when the baby was 4 days old to review and the parents didn't show. They showed at the next hearing and the judge ordered an evaluation from a psychologist. Mom had a 12 year history of mental problems and the psychologist diagnosed her with paranoid schizophrenia, and the father with another disorder that fed into it.
Not saying it's right of the court to terminate parental rights due to a psychologists diagnosis and the parents history of mental issues...but there IS more to this story.
I never trust the huffington post, they always have an agenda.
Here's a link: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf
thank you for posting this! my first thought and hope was that there had to be more to the story... with that said i am sure there are horrible unjust things happening with our legal system so i'm not naive, but this was so mind bloggling that i am very glad to hear that at least in this case all was not as it appeared.
Quoting LeanneC:
Just did a search on this case because it bothered me. Apparently, the were concerned about the moms mental stability. They set up a hearing when the baby was 4 days old to review and the parents didn't show. They showed at the next hearing and the judge ordered an evaluation from a psychologist. Mom had a 12 year history of mental problems and the psychologist diagnosed her with paranoid schizophrenia, and the father with another disorder that fed into it.
Not saying it's right of the court to terminate parental rights due to a psychologists diagnosis and the parents history of mental issues...but there IS more to this story.
I never trust the huffington post, they always have an agenda.
Here's a link: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf
Okiee sooooooo ur telling me they set up a hearing 4 days after this womens baby was taken from her....... she probably didn't get out of the hospital say until 3 days....... or 2 days after baby was born........ A) what time frame is that good to get counsel if she needed some.... B) then they make her go thru a evaluation after that fact that they took her baby that she carried for 9 mths............... also alot of women have PPD and stuff like that......... how do they know that this didn't play into factor of the out come of her evaluation. separation..... ordeal from the baby........ COME ON Ladies.... If there was a true concern about the mothers mental stability...... then how come someone didn't do something before the birth to get the mother checked out ??? how come wait until the birth where it would have alot more impact on the mothers mental state??? I know if someone walked into the hospital and said ooooooo we r takin ur rights to the baby u just birthed and loved for 9mths.... i would go wack o toooo......... think about it. As much as u guys would think of judical system works for the best interest of EVERYONE.......... think again. I have seen kids pulled from their loving homes just because they could do it. terrible i tell u..... terrible.
Quoting LeanneC:
Just did a search on this case because it bothered me. Apparently, the were concerned about the moms mental stability. They set up a hearing when the baby was 4 days old to review and the parents didn't show. They showed at the next hearing and the judge ordered an evaluation from a psychologist. Mom had a 12 year history of mental problems and the psychologist diagnosed her with paranoid schizophrenia, and the father with another disorder that fed into it.
Not saying it's right of the court to terminate parental rights due to a psychologists diagnosis and the parents history of mental issues...but there IS more to this story.
I never trust the huffington post, they always have an agenda.
Here's a link: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf
if I wanted my child I would be doing what I needed to in the hospital.
Quoting sassy_sweet_blu:
Okiee sooooooo ur telling me they set up a hearing 4 days after this womens baby was taken from her....... she probably didn't get out of the hospital say until 3 days....... or 2 days after baby was born........ A) what time frame is that good to get counsel if she needed some.... B) then they make her go thru a evaluation after that fact that they took her baby that she carried for 9 mths............... also alot of women have PPD and stuff like that......... how do they know that this didn't play into factor of the out come of her evaluation. separation..... ordeal from the baby........ COME ON Ladies.... If there was a true concern about the mothers mental stability...... then how come someone didn't do something before the birth to get the mother checked out ??? how come wait until the birth where it would have alot more impact on the mothers mental state??? I know if someone walked into the hospital and said ooooooo we r takin ur rights to the baby u just birthed and loved for 9mths.... i would go wack o toooo......... think about it. As much as u guys would think of judical system works for the best interest of EVERYONE.......... think again. I have seen kids pulled from their loving homes just because they could do it. terrible i tell u..... terrible.
Quoting LeanneC:
Just did a search on this case because it bothered me. Apparently, the were concerned about the moms mental stability. They set up a hearing when the baby was 4 days old to review and the parents didn't show. They showed at the next hearing and the judge ordered an evaluation from a psychologist. Mom had a 12 year history of mental problems and the psychologist diagnosed her with paranoid schizophrenia, and the father with another disorder that fed into it.
Not saying it's right of the court to terminate parental rights due to a psychologists diagnosis and the parents history of mental issues...but there IS more to this story.
I never trust the huffington post, they always have an agenda.
Here's a link: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4627-06.pdf
Meet Kmakksmom
This Washington state mom of six loves how CafeMom members are always there for each other - and she has some "helpful" career plans of her own!
Registry Advice
- cali4niachef
on Jul. 25, 2009 at 1:48 AM