The Citizens Voice
Woman hits hospitals' stance that she agree to C-section
By Lisa Napersky , Citizens' Voice Staff Writer 01/17/2004
A Plymouth woman who was ordered by a Luzerne County judge to consent to a Caesarean section delivery of her baby said Friday she was appalled by the treatment she received at two area hospitals.
While she was in labor Tuesday night, Amber Marlowe, Academy Street, Plymouth, said she spent hours defending her right to deliver her baby lady partslly.
She and her husband, John, drove to three different hospitals before she found a doctor who would respect her wishes.
"It was very upsetting," stated Marlowe, who gave birth lady partslly to a healthy baby girl Thursday morning in Moses Taylor Hospital, Scranton. "All this just because I didn't want an operation."
After Marlowe refused to consent to a C-section and checked herself out of Wilkes-Barre General Hospital Wednesday morning, the hospital took legal action against her.
Hospital workers claimed that an ultrasound indicated Marlowe's fetus weighed 13 pounds and the lives of the mother and the baby would be in jeopardy if the operation weren't performed.
At the request of Wyoming Valley Health Care Systems, Luzerne County President Michael Conahan signed an order Wednesday appointing the hospital as legal guardian for the unborn child.
Judge Conahan also ordered that the parents "are hereby temporarily restrained from refusing to consent to a C-section delivery of their unborn fetus if the professional medical judgment of WVHCS and the treating obstetrician is that such a procedure is necessary."
The preliminary injunction ordering Marlowe to submit to the C-section was delivered to her residence, but she never received the document.
"They kept wanting to cut me open to get the baby. I think they may have actually sent police to our house, but we weren't home," said Marlowe. "I kept telling them I've already had six kids, and the biggest one weighed 12 pounds and there were no problems."
Marlowe said when she started having contractions Tuesday night, she went to Mercy Hospital, Wilkes-Barre, because it was close to her home. After medical personnel performed an ultrasound, Marlowe said she was informed the baby was going to weigh more than 11 pounds and a doctor insisted that she undergo a C-section operation, even though there were no apparent problems.
"They told me there was no way they would let me deliver the baby naturally because the doctor didn't want a lawsuit," said Marlowe. "I had a friend who died during a C-section, and I was afraid to do it that way."
Even when the couple offered to sign papers promising not to file a lawsuit, the doctor refused, explained Marlowe. She said staff members at Mercy Hospital called security when she told them she was leaving.
She and her husband next drove to Wilkes-Barre General Hospital. Marlowe was admitted at 10 p.m., and a second ultrasound was done.
Doctors there reached the same conclusion as those at Mercy Hospital. They also refused to deliver the baby lady partslly, claiming it was too dangerous because of the size of the fetus.
Throughout the night, said Marlowe, nurses and doctors told her "horror stories" about how her baby was going to be handicapped if she didn't have the operation. She checked herself out at 11 a.m.
"I told them, forget it - I'm leaving. Then I came up here (Moses Taylor) and had my baby the proper way," she stated. "The doctor here never even suggested a C-section.
They did an ultrasound and blood work and continued to monitor me, and there was no problem."
In the civil complaint filed against the Marlowes, who are referred to as Jane and John Doe in court documents because of patient confidentiality, plaintiffs are listed as the WVHCS and Baby Doe.
"Even in the absence of present fetal distress and even with ongoing fetal monitoring, a lady partsl delivery of this size fetus could result in complications occurring during the delivery ... and result in unavoidable death or serious impairment to the baby," states the complaint. "Baby Doe, a full term viable fetus, has certain rights, including the right to have decisions made for it, independent of its parents, regarding its health and survival."
According to the suit, John and Amber Marlowe cited religious reasons for not wanting to have the operation. The complaint also states that during one of Marlowe's previous pregnancies, the baby suffered shoulder impairment because of the size of the fetus. The couple said neither allegation is true, and that the main reason for wanting lady partsl delivery was fear of having an operation.
Marlowe said she and her husband are contemplating filing a lawsuit against Mercy and General hospitals for causing them distress.
©The Citizens Voice 2004
www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10824225&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=6
L&D_RN_OH
288 Posts
If you read one of the first articles, it mentioned that the parents were willing to sign papers releasing the hospital of liability. And since there is no mention of no prenatal care or homebirth, I'm assuming there was prenatal care and they were planning a hosp birth. Otherwise, IMO, the press would have taken that ball and rolled with it. The suit was filed by the second hosp she went to. In all likelihood, the first hosp was where her OB was. I know we have LOTS of pts who receive prenatal care and are due to deliver at another local hosp but end up coming to ours for some reason or another. If the parents were willing to release liability, and the education of the pt is well documented, I don't understand why this hosp felt the need to gain a court order over this woman's body.
"Just because pt. delivered lady partslly and baby seems ok, it doesn't mean she did the right thing."
Is this the birth is normal only in retrospect theory? And how can we determine what was "right" for this pt?