Eugene Volokh points to an interesting AP story about a woman who allowed one of her babies to die rather than have a Caesarean section to deliver her twins at her doctor's recommendation. Prof. Volokh says:
A really tough issue: On the one hand, I'm skittish about any legal requirement that someone get surgery, even to save her child's life. On the other hand, parents do rightly have a legal obligation to take care of their children, and it may well be that this obligation does extend even to going under the knife. Thought experiment: Should the law be able to force a parent -- on pain of a murder conviction -- to donate bone marrow to save a child's life? Should it be able to do so, but only on pain of conviction of a lesser offense, such as involuntary manslaughter or child neglect?But, as he notes, the vast majority of Caesarean sections do not result in any complications or permanent injury.Incidentally, while this naturally brings up an analogy to the constitutional right to an abortion, the analogy is complex. U.S. constitutional law actually recognizes two different rights to an abortion: A categorical right pre-viability, and a right post-viability when the abortion is needed to preserve the mother's life or health. The first right is surely not implicated here; the baby (and I feel quite comfortable calling it a baby) died at gestational age 9 months. The second right, though, is potentially implicated; the argument would be that it is potentially harmful to a woman's health to have a caesarean section.
Society requires parents to make many sacrifices for their kids: feed them, clothe them, shelter them, &c. The difference is that once the child is born the mother can put him up for adoption if she really doesn't want him. In this circumstance, therewas no way to transfer responsibility for the baby away from the mother.
That fact doesn't bother me, however. In this instance the mother clearly had accepted the responsibility of pregnancy and delivery, but later decided to chicken out after the point of no return (legally and morally, even though those points may not be the same).
I think a large part of the problem with the modern approach to children, abortion, pregnancy, and so forth is that the parents think it's all about them. They want kids, or they don't, and at every stage there's a failure to recognize that there are more lives than their own in the balance. The mother in this story wasn't even worried about her own health, she was worried that the surgery would leave an unattractive scar. That avoiding such a fate would kill her child was inconsequential.
Maybe I'm misinformed, but I think that points to the very heart of the pro-choice argument: that ultimately the right of the mother is more important than the right of the unborn child, that to not allow a fetus to be aborted is to violate the rights of the mother. That a fetus, until a certain # of months of viability, is not its own entity and still part of the mother - hence under her direct control and charge.
Is that correct? Am I getting the gist of it correct?
Nothing in the story, other than the prosecutor statements, supports the idea that her objections were purely aesthetic. And the woman herself has denied the story, saying that she has no objections to c-sections, and has had two c-sections in the past.
So, frankly, I have no idea what to make of this case. I think the facts are not going to be clear until trial, and maybe not even then.
What do you say to E.V.'s bone marrow transfer example? In that case, would you favor arresting and prosecuting the father for negligant homicide?
Melissa Ann Rowland, 28, was charged Thursday of showing "depraved indifference to human life," ignoring medical advice to deliver her twins by C-section because she didn't want to be scarred. One nurse told police Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."
Sounds like part of the official charge against her. Where does the woman deny this?
Uh, go back and read that story again, more closely, people.
And look at the picture in the article. That's not just an unflattering picture--looks like she might have Down's or something. So let's not go crazy with the blame, ok?
This is not true for everyone but a large number of women who have a C-section, have following babies delivered the same way. In this day and age, it not always the case but sometimes it is medically necessary (I speak from experience). Having said that, she should have been aware from the moment she got pregnant that having a C-section was a possibility. I am staunchly pro-life but if she didn't want a C-section/child, I feel she should have made a decision about that prior to waiting until the babies were due. On the other hand, I have also witnessed the effect of mental illnesses on a few family members and it is difficult for me to decide if she should be fully prosecuted because of what mental illness does to you.
If she's mentally ill maybe she shouldn't be having kids at all?
I'm not saying this is an easy case, or that any alternative is good, but some alternative must be better than the rest. And, in this case, I think that means prosecuting her for some sort of homicide.
The primary issue is can you be legally obligated to undergo any medical procedure for the benefit of another: fetus, child, relative or stranger?
Historically that has always been 'the line' - you can't be legally required to do as little as donate a pint of your rare blood type even it it would save someone else's life.
So although the particulars AS PRESENTED in the case show the mother-to-be's rationale's to be crass, still are we really willing to say that someone, anyone, is legally obligated to undergo a medical procedure because it will benefit someone else?
Are mandatory blood/bone marrow/organ donations the possible futures further down on that particular slippery slope?
BVB: I see your point, and I agree with you generally, but I think this situation is different because the mother voluntarily assumed responsiblity for her babies when she had sex and got pregnant.
We require parents do do all sorts of things for their kids that we don't require others to do for random strangers. If I see you starving I don't have to lift a finger to help, but if my kids starve due to neglect then I'm responsible.
Go back and look at that woman again. Then ponder the story--think I read it on Overlawyered--of the Down's syndrome guy who was fired from a supermarket he'd been working in--for 9 years--after he opened a box of doughnuts on the floor, ate half of one, and put it back.
Now maybe she has a normal IQ, and that was a really bad picture, and she was fully cognizant of everything. But we don't *know* that and circumstantial evidence wold tend to argue against it.