Woman Charged With Murder?

I heard this on Paul Harvey

from JoeUser Forums
I was listening to Paul Harvey this past Friday afternoon and I heard him talking about this. I didn't get the town where this actually happened but maybe someone else has more information that they could post.
It seems that there was a certain woman who became pregnant with twins. The doctors warned her thet if she had the twins by natural child birth that the babies would not survive and she was encouraged to have them through surgical proceedures.
She absolutely refused to do this and insisted on having them naturally.
She ended up having things her own way and she had the twins through natural child birth. One of the twins was fine but the other was still-born.
Now the mother is being charged with murder.
I don't understand this. Shouldn't a woman have the right to choose the way in which she wants to bring her children into the world? Shouldn't any person male or female be able to decide whether or not they wish to have surgery? GCJ
3,450 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is too complicated an issue to make quick decision.

On the one hand, any person should have the right to decide what should happen to their own body.

But on the other hand one can also claim that a female who decides to become pregnant has a duty to her children-to-be (as has the father).

It's the very same problem as with the abortion issue and there is just no way we can figure out what answer is true because neither of the two principles above is universally accepted as overriding the other in such cases.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know the details so I am going to try to not be judgemental on this particular case. What I can say as a mother is that I simply can't fathom why I woman would risk her babies welfare. Surgery or possibly lose your baby/babies? No brainer for me especially since any woman should know that any pregnancy can end in emergency c-section anyway. If you want to have your child "naturally" and not listen to the doctor, stay at home and have it. Take the responsibility out of the poor doctor's hands. Think of how that poor doctor must feel. He could possibly have prevented that death. What is more compelling, the woman's right to refuse a surgical procedure or the right of the baby to be born alive?
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

My thoughts echo Andrew's.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would be interested to hear what the father's stance was. I would think it valid for him to press charges. If not murder, how about endangerment. It was a full term baby.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"It's the very same problem as with the abortion issue"


If that is the case, then she should face manslaughter at a minimum. I don't know of anywhere in the US that it is legal to abort a child at the time of birth. If this is an issue about a woman's right to terminate an unborn child, I think it is pretty plain. If a drunk driver had killed the unborn at this stage he would be facing at least manslaughter.

If they say she was negligent, I don't think abortion enters into it. If they try to use abortion rights to save her I think it is a clear at that stage of pregnancy. She should plead insanity and save herself the risk of either. She didn't seem to be in touch with reality at all in the phone interview.

I would say she'll either face manslaughter or negligent homicide charges for not risking the C section, or be ordered to psychological treatment. I don't think they will be able to prove that her intent was to kill the babies.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think this case is similar to a crackwhore who takes crack while she's having a child. She knows it's dangerous for the child, and it could do terrible things to the child, but she still does it anyway. Some might say that since it's in her body, she could do whatever she wants with it, but if she's aware of the possible death of her child, then I think she should be responsible if she refuses to take the necessary precautions. It's also like those religious parents that went to prison for letting their children die rather than take them to the doctor for their shots.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
No way would she ever get charged with murder.  "Beyond reasonable doubt"....babies are still born all the time, there'd really be no proof that her lack of operation caused it.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
How many of those incidents involve mothers who are aware that not having an operation will most likely result in death?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The thing that the prosecutor is going to use against her is that she was forewarned that choosing and insisting on a vaginal delivery put her child(ren) at risk, Jeremy.
I can completely believe that she's being charged with murder. Will she be convicted? I don't know, I don't have all the evidence.

To answer your question GCJ, yes, a woman should have a choice as to how she delivers, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COMPROMISE THE WELL BEING OF THE INFANT. To me, the only thing that mattered was a healthy baby, the method of delivery was secondary. That, apparently, isn't everyone's priority (although I can't for the life of me understand why).
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
JeremyG, my babies were constantly monitored for changes in heart rate as signs of distress during childbirth. If these tests were being done, the baby was shown to have a heart beat prior to delivery and was then terminated due to not expediting his/her exit from the womb, it could show the baby was killed due to the woman's choice. I don't believe that she should be convicted of murder. I don't see it as her deciding to kill the baby. I just can't understand what the thought was.

I'm with you dharmagrl, the method of delivery shouldn't matter. I just don't understand it.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Parents who refuse chemotherapy for their children with luekemenia are charged with child neglect. Doctors have the right to complain to the police if family member's refuse to allow necessary treatment for children. I suspect that the mother was afraid of anesthesia and that is why she refused. She probably won't be found guilty to murder but something else. As far as her child was concerned, the mother was wrong, but if she is terrified of surgery she may not be thinking rightly.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
This took place in Salt Lake City. Her reason for not having a c section is that she didn't want to have scars. Doctors told her that without a C-section the twins would probably die but she told the nurse that a C section would "ruin her life" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that". An autopsy found the baby died two days before its Jan 13 delivery and would have survived if she had the c-section when her doctors urgerd here to between Christmas and Jan. 9. She went to the hospital because she couldn't feel the babies move. The doctor did an ultrasound and wanted an immediate C section because of the babies slowing heart rates and she left the hospital. She then went to another hospital because she didn't want the C-section. A week later she went to a third hospital to find out if her babies were still alive. The nurse couldn't detect a heartbeat from one twin and advised her to remain in the hospital but she left yet again.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
If this is true, she will be prosecuted. This is as bad as leaving a living baby in a trash can.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The really strange part is that during the telephone interview she denied the thing about the C Section, and then said that she had undergone 2 C sections previous to this pregnancy. She said that she already had the scars, so she wasn't scared of more. I dunno if she is crazy or what. Odd situation. Either she didn't explain why she went from hospital to hospital, or they omitted it from the interview. The mugshot was on par with Nick Nolte, though. *shudder*
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know who I would side with here. It is a woman's own choice about giving birth to children but then I read this "If a drunk driver had killed the unborn at this stage he would be facing at least manslaughter." by Barkerstreet and I realized how true it was. Should a murderer get special treatment when her baby was the victom? Is it right to tell a woman the "proper" way to give birth?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is how I see it: If we're not supposed to tell a woman how to give birth if the natural way is going to kill one of her children, then we shouldn't tell parents how to raise kids in general, even if it kills them.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree 100%. Who could have know for sure that one of the twins would be born dead.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Read the whole story at:  http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03122004/utah/147031.asp

She *knew* that *both* babies were in distress.  She could have killed both of them.  She was also on cocaine.

I have two thoughts on this from two angles-
1) The hospital could have petitioned to get a guardian appointed for the babies and forced her to have the operation.  She was obviously not mentally capable of handling the situation.
2) If the tables were turned and a baby died after a C-Section, would the doctor go to jail because the mother wanted to have a natural birth?