Article - Woman Charged with Murder After She Refuses C-Section

Woman charged with murder after allegedly ignoring warnings to have
Caesarean

By ALEXANDRIA SAGE
Associated Press Writer

SALT LAKE CITY -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical
warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged
Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that
accompany the surgery.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and
that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her
doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan. 9. The other baby is
alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would
probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a
Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the
babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations
for the mother's decision," said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district
attorney.

Court documents give no address for Rowland, and she isn't listed in
area telephone books. An attorney was to be appointed for her Friday,
Morgan said. A court appearance was set for Tuesday.

The charges carry five years to life in prison. Rowland was jailed on
$250,000 bail.

According to the documents, Rowland went to LDS Hospital in Salt Lake
City in December to seek advice after she hadn't felt her babies move. A
nurse, Regina Davis, told police she instructed Rowland to go
immediately to one of two other hospitals, but that Rowland said she
would rather have both babies die before going to either place.

On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital examined Rowland and recommended an
immediate C-section based on an ultrasound and the babies' slowing heart
rates. Rowland left, the doctor told police.

The same day, Rowland allegedly saw a nurse at another hospital, saying
she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from
breast bone to pubic bone."

A week later, Rowland allegedly went to a third hospital to verify
whether her babies were alive. A nurse there told police she could not
detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised Rowland to remain in the
hospital, but Rowland allegedly ignored the advice.

A spokesman for LDS Hospital said he could not comment, citing medical
privacy and a pending court case. It was not clear how many weeks
Rowland was pregnant before the delivery.

In January, the state Supreme Court ruled that unborn children at all
stages of development are covered under the state's criminal homicide
statute. The law exempts the death of a fetus during an abortion.

The law has been used to prosecute women who kill or seriously harm
their babies through drug use; it has never been used because a woman
failed to follow her doctor's advice, said Marguerite Driessen, a law
professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going
to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she
made," Driessen said.

(AP)

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:33:11 -0500, Sophie wrote:

Woman charged with murder after allegedly ignoring warnings to have
Caesarean

I'd seriously question her ability to raise a child too.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (19m)
mommy to two tiny angels (28 Oct 2003 & 17 Feb 2004)
guardian of DH (33)

Sophie wrote:
Woman charged with murder after allegedly ignoring warnings to have
Caesarean

By ALEXANDRIA SAGE
Associated Press Writer

SALT LAKE CITY -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical
warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged
Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.
snip

I'm not sure how to feel about this. I think the woman's motives were wrong
in that she refused a c-section for cosmetic reasons only, and I think she
should have took it. Childbirth is a wonderful thing, and the scar would be
a permanent (and I think pleasant) reminder of that day. This scares me a
bit though, that a woman is charged with murder for having a stillborn baby.
What's next? If a person eats lunchmeat or soft cheese, comes down with
listeria and her baby dies, will she be charged with murder?

"Crystal Dreamer" wrote in message
...
Sophie wrote:
Woman charged with murder after allegedly ignoring warnings to have
Caesarean

By ALEXANDRIA SAGE
Associated Press Writer

SALT LAKE CITY -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical
warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged
Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.
snip

I'm not sure how to feel about this. I think the woman's motives were
wrong
in that she refused a c-section for cosmetic reasons only, and I think she
should have took it. Childbirth is a wonderful thing, and the scar would
be
a permanent (and I think pleasant) reminder of that day.

I think people also have no idea what a c-section scar looks like. It's not
like you look all hacked open and sewn back together a la Frankenstein.
I've had 3 c-sections, the last one 2 yrs ago. My scar is honestly almost
invisible. You *really* have to look hard to see it. Nevermind it's in the
hair, with underwear on or a bikini, no one can even see it so what's the
big deal??


This scares me a
bit though, that a woman is charged with murder for having a stillborn
baby.
What's next? If a person eats lunchmeat or soft cheese, comes down with
listeria and her baby dies, will she be charged with murder?

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:38:39 -0600, Crystal Dreamer wrote:

What's next? If a person eats lunchmeat or soft cheese, comes down with
listeria and her baby dies, will she be charged with murder?

In this case I think it was quite clear: have the c-section or both babies
might die. She was told several times and still refused for obviously
selfish reasons. Of course one can question the way the doctors were
dealing with the situation after they realized she was running away from
it. Apparently noone managed to explain in detail to her what a c-section
would be like.

In a case of listeria it's less obvious you were willingly putting your
baby at risk. The food doesn't have a sticker on it that will tell you it
can be harmful for pregnant women. Plus the risk of actually getting sick
is extremely small, whereas the chance of her babies dying was enormous.

It's walking a thin line. And I must say that personally I don't agree
with the fact that babies at ANY gestational age fall under this law,
but it should at least cover babies after 26 weeks, when survival changes
are relatively good.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (19m)
mommy to two tiny angels (28 Oct 2003 & 17 Feb 2004)
guardian of DH (33)

"Sophie" wrote in message
...

My scar is honestly almost
invisible. You *really* have to look hard to see it. Nevermind it's in
the
hair, with underwear on or a bikini, no one can even see it so what's the
big deal??

I'm just floored that you can wear a bikini after three pregnancies.

Donna (off to put her head into the oven in envy wink)

"Donna" wrote in message
...

"Sophie" wrote in message
...

My scar is honestly almost
invisible. You *really* have to look hard to see it. Nevermind it's in
the
hair, with underwear on or a bikini, no one can even see it so what's
the
big deal??

I'm just floored that you can wear a bikini after three pregnancies.

Donna (off to put her head into the oven in envy wink)


I didn't say I do, I just said if I did, you wouldn't see the scar

I'm not a bikini person, wasn't before kids, that's the only reason why I
wouldn't wear one now honestly.

"Sophie" wrote in message
...

My scar is honestly almost
invisible. You *really* have to look hard to see it. Nevermind it's in
the
hair, with underwear on or a bikini, no one can even see it so what's
the
big deal??

I have the "classical" incision, the long vertical one
from the belly button on down. It's definitely visible.
I was a bit concerned beforehand (my c-section was
medically indicated), but DH said, "50 years ago I would
have lost both you and the baby, what's the big deal
about a scar?"

However, I also was never a bikini person, so that
part, at least, was not a concern.

-- Anita --

"Sophie" wrote in message
...
Woman charged with murder after allegedly ignoring warnings to have
Caesarean

By ALEXANDRIA SAGE
Associated Press Writer

SALT LAKE CITY -- A pregnant woman who allegedly ignored medical
warnings to have a Caesarean section to save her twins was charged
Thursday with murder after one of the babies was stillborn.

Prosecutors said Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, didn't want the scars that
accompany the surgery.

An autopsy found the baby died two days before its Jan. 13 delivery and
that it would have survived if Rowland had had a C-section when her
doctors urged her to, between Christmas and Jan. 9. The other baby is
alive, but authorities had no further information.

The doctors had warned that without a C-section, the twins would
probably die, authorities said. A nurse told police Rowland said a
Caesarean would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the
babies than be cut like that."

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations
for the mother's decision," said Kent Morgan, spokesman for the district
attorney.

snip

I would like to add that anything any of us can say, based on this scanty
article, is mere theorising. None of us know, because the article didn't
say, quite a *number* of things. Let's begin with:

1) How many weeks pregnant was this woman? Cesareans performed earlier in
pregnancy are often done with a 'classic' incision ('stem to stern') because
the lower segment of the uterus is not stretched thin enough to allow for
the 'bikini' cut. Also depending on where the babies' placentas lie, the
bikini cut may not be possible.

2) Were these identical twins, suffering some variety of twin-specific
pregnancy complication (twin-to-twin transfusion, monoamniotic twinning) or
poly- or oliogohydramnios?

3) as pointed out by somebody else, how much premature would these babies
have been? Would they have been guaranteed life if they'd been cut out of
her? Or were they being offered some *chance* of life, but as good a chance
of being permanently handicapped if they did live? (As the mother of
premature twins, one of whom was born with multiple disadvantages like a
severe heart defect, and multiple stomach defects - and who is still fed by
g-tube, and still has not caught up with her sister - I come into contact
with a lot of kids whose parents ask themselves every day, did we make the
right decision in keeping the baby alive?)

4) How do we even know the quote was accurate? Or in context? Or even
remotely representative of the situation?

digressionBack in 1990 when I was involved with Operation Rescue, I once
attended a 'rescue' as the sole picketer, while other people blocked the
doors of an abortion clinic. Some locals came by, asked what was going on,
and said "Cool!" They went home for their pet Burmese pythons, which they
brought back to scare (the OR) people away from the doors. Also, there was a
fire in a nearby block, with all the fire engines and everything. When the
news media got hold of the story, The OR people had brought the snakes to
scare women coming for abortions, away from the clinic, and the OR people
(who were blocking the doors with their bodies) had also called in a bomb
threat to the clinic and that was why the fire engines came. Those of us who
were there said, "Huh?" But hey, it was there in black and white, it MUST
have been true./digression

What did the doctors/nurses actually say to her about the cesarean procedure
*she* faced? When my (90 year old) grandfather recently faced a colonoscopy,
he was *terrified*. Why? Because he genuinely believed he was going to be
"cut from stem to stern". However, my parents found out what was
frightening him so badly and educated him. He was fine.

Possibly (though I doubt this) she knew of the risk to future pregnancies
(which include an increased risk of placenta accreta, a risk of spontaneous
uterine rupture before or during labor (and if she had been given a
'classic' incision, a MUCH higher risk of rupture, not to mention she would
never have been allowed to birth vaginally in any hospital, ever again), an
increased risk of unexplained stillbirth....

There really are some people who, because they want to have many children,
would far rather risk the death of one, than compromise their future
reproductive future.

Or maybe she simply didn't want to look scarred. I mean, we don't know that.

I'm curious about the doctors telling her she ought to have been delivered
between Christmas and January 9....hm? That's a 2-week window. Why the
window? I can't make sense of it. I wish there were more details.

--angela

Sophie wrote:
|| Woman charged with murder after allegedly ignoring warnings to have
|| Caesarean
||
snipped
My 0.02.......
IMO this case is a horribly difficult one. It comes down to where will they
draw the line in protecting a baby in utero. *I* do believe that the baby I
am carrying is in fact another human being and I have certain obligations as
it's mother to give it the best protection while I am carrying it and
beyond. Logically one would think that with true, proper medical advice
that you should follow it but where will that line stand? A lot falls in
the eyes of the beholder.......as someone else commented on other danger
factors such as drugs, smoking, poor diet, too large to deliver, no prenatal
care, no excercise, maternal health risks? Should pregnant drug addicts
be locked up to prevent use? Should the child welfare agencies perform
visits on every pregnant woman and raid there fridge? You can say what is
right or wrong on such a slippery slope......Will we be free women or
incubators?

We've all read the article of the mother that refused a c-sec(babe too
large) and went on to deliver a healthy baby vaginally. Although her
outcome was good they still went after her for refusing the judges orders.
Someone setting the precedent is what frightens me...I plan on a homebirth
with this one what if something were to go wrong, should I be liable for
murder for not taking the typical medical route and delivering within
hospital? I understand the risks for myself and babe delivering a home
but what would the majority of N.America say?

Jenn
-WAHM
-DS Feb'92
-DD Feb'97
-Jellyfish due June 25/04