Forced Csection??

All they said was less than 13 pounds. Apparently, a csection was a big deal to her and I can respect that. Many people have fear of surgery, and since she had delivered 6 children lady partslly, one that was 12 pounds, I can understand why she would think a CS was unneccesary.

I'm just curious about the logistics of forced surgery. I mean do you have to restrain them to the bed and then forcibly pick them up and put them on the OR table? And I guess you'd have to do a general to make sure they wouldn't get up. Just wonering, you know, in case it ever comes up at work.

:roll

Something doesn't sound right. Did she have prenatal care? It seems like if she did her Ob gyn would have known about the increased size and her history. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Got to admit I had a C-section the first time and a v-bac second time. V-bac was alot easier on me.

Noney

I believe women have the right to refuse surgery, but the hospital should also have the right to refuse to treat her in this case. Lawsuits are just too common and I can't imagine any doctor wanting to risk delivering a 13 lb baby if there was a hystory of shoulder impairtment.

In a landmark 1987 case the court resoundingly concluded that in virtually all circumstances a woman -- not doctors or a judge -- should make medical decisions on behalf of herself and her fetus

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/reproduct/coercive.html

I think there is more to this story and doubt its angle somewhat. It sound fishy. JMO.

I agree with the person who said the story sounds fishy. It sounds like she was a drop-in with no prenatal care. After having had 6 children, if she so wanted to deliver lady partslly she could have always opted for home birth. I would like to have a lot more information on this praticular case.

Originally posted by stevielynn

That is a good point. I've been in some very very scary delivers when the shoulder has gotten stuck and then there was some impairment.

During my fourth pregnancy, which was a surprise, I found myself wishing for a cesarean. I just don't like the feeling of being out of control of my own body and labor feels like that to me. Funny that I ended up with one but I was so grateful because my son was delivered ok.

steph

I had a woman delivering with a big baby that had dystocia and it was hands down the scariest experience of my career. If I had a baby that big, I would be demanding a lady partsl bypass!

To paraphrase Paul Harvey...

Let's hear "the rest of the story".

And who do you think she'd sue if someting happend during the vag delivery?

IMO, regardless of whether or not this woman had prenatal care, she has the right to refuse surgery. As any pt has the rightt to refuse treatment.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/7730516.htm

Posted on Sun, Jan. 18, 2004

Hospital faces fight in birth dispute

A now-moot Luzerne County court order for a Caesarian section will see a challenge.

By TERRIE MORGAN-BESECKER

[email protected]

WILKES-BARRE - Concerned his case could impact other pregnant women, a Plymouth man said Friday he's working with a national reproductive rights group to challenge a court order that sought to force his wife to undergo a Caesarean section against her will.

John Marlowe said he's pressing on with the case - even though the order is moot since his wife already gave birth to an 11 pound, 9 ounce baby - because he doesn't want other couples to endure the stress they did as they battled hospital officials regarding their decision.

"It's more than my wife. What happens to the next lady that goes in there?" Marlowe said. "If they get away with this, what it's telling people across the country is a hospital has a right to do what it wants, and the woman has no rights."

Marlowe's wife, Amber, checked out against medical advice from Wilkes-Barre General Hospital on Wednesday morning after physicians there insisted she have a Caesarean section because of concerns about the fetus' weight, which was estimated at 13 pounds. She later gave birth lady partslly at Moses Taylor Hospital in Scranton.

Unbeknownst to the Marlowes, after they left General Hospital, attorneys for Wyoming Valley Healthcare System sought a court order to gain guardianship of the fetus in case the Marlowes returned to their hospital. The order, granted without the Marlowes' knowledge, forbade them from refusing a Caesarean section if doctors there deemed it medically necessary.

Kevin McDonald, spokesman for the health-care system, said Friday the hospital stands by its decision to seek the order. "These were really unique circumstances. We did what we believed was in the best interest of the patient."

McDonald said as far as the health system is concerned the legal dispute is over.

"The injunction was only effective if she came to our hospital and we had to do a Caesarean section. Since that didn't happen, the order is moot," he said.

But Lynn Paltrow, an attorney specializing in women's reproductive rights, said the issue goes far deeper than the Marlowes.

"This is not a conflict between a pregnant woman and a fetus. It is a conflict between a pregnant woman and her fetus against the raw power of the state to impose an unnecessary surgical procedure on a woman's own body."

Paltrow, of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women in New York City, said she's working with the Marlowes to find a Pennsylvania attorney to fight Conahan's order. She said she believes the couple might also have a civil case against the hospital for violating their rights.

Marlowe said he and his wife are still considering their options and might file suit seeking monetary damages. But he said money is not the key factor motivating him.

"We're talking civil liberties issues, not suing for money," he said. "Right now you have a judge saying a hospital has the right to claim guardianship of an unborn fetus and guardianship after it is born. That's unacceptable. We need to set a precedent that a hospital cannot have higher rights than the parents."