| Author | Message | ||
     P47b |
I don't know how to take this. Government in our lives, or a person who doesn't care. I'll have to watch what happens with this http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100126/ap_on_re_us/us_court_ordered_bed_rest TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Samantha Burton wanted to leave the hospital. Her doctor strongly disagreed, enough to go to court to keep her there. She smoked cigarettes during the first six months of her pregnancy and was admitted on a false alarm of premature labor. Her doctor argued she was risking a miscarriage if she didn't quit smoking immediately and stay on bed rest in the hospital, and a judge agreed. Three days after the judge ordered her not to leave the hospital, Burton delivered a stillborn fetus by cesarean section. And six months after the pregnancy ended, the dispute over the legal move to keep her in the hospital continues, raising questions about where a mother's right to decide her own medical treatment ends and where the priority of protecting a fetus begins. "The entire experience was horrible and I am still very upset about it," Burton said through her lawyer. "I hope nobody else has to go through what I went through." Burton, who declined to be interviewed, is appealing the judge's order. She isn't asking for money but hopes to keep her case from setting a precedent for legal control over women with problem pregnancies. She also worries it could prevent women from seeking prenatal care. State Attorney Willie Meggs stands by his decision to seek the court order after being contacted by the hospital. "This is good people trying to do things in a right fashion to save lives," he said, "whether some people want them saved or not." Burton is in her late 20s, has two young daughters and a common-law husband and holds down a blue-collar job, said her lawyer, David Abrams. She didn't want an abortion, had obtained prenatal care and voluntarily went to the hospital after experiencing symptoms she'd been told to look out for, he said. But she didn't like the care she received at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital. She said her doctor, Jana Bures-Foresthoefel, was brusque and overbearing. Her lawyer said bed rest for difficult pregnancies is a controversial issue because it can cause some complications like blood clots. Abrams said smoking by itself doesn't cause miscarriages. The mother said she wanted the option to seek care at another hospital or to go home so she could care for her two daughters. "I was desperately hoping to receive the care I needed to save my baby," Burton wrote in her statement. "However, after a few days there, I did not feel I was receiving the care I needed, and instead of being allowed to leave or go to another hospital, I found myself being ordered by a judge to stay at Tallahassee Memorial and submit to all medical care from its hospital staff, whether I agreed or not." The doctor and hospital officials declined to comment, referring calls to the state prosecutor. American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Diana Kasdan said if the ruling stands it could lead to the state virtually taking over the lives of pregnant women, including telling them what they should or should not eat and drink and what medications they must take. "It would be a horrible precedent," Kasdan said. The state disputes that scenario, arguing Burton's case is rare — the only one out of 30,000 births in the Tallahassee area over the last 10 years. Abrams said Burton's condition didn't merit such extreme action. Her symptoms were not that unusual, she wasn't in active labor and the state failed to show why bed rest at Tallahassee Memorial would have been any better than at another hospital or home, he said. The judge ruled the best interests of the fetus overrode Burton's privacy rights, but Abrams disputes that. He notes the Florida Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, has an explicit and strong privacy right, which the state Supreme Court has said guarantees a competent person the right to "choose or refuse medical treatment." "If you apply the best interest of the child standard, the woman becomes nothing more than a fetal incubator owned by the state of Florida," Abrams said. Circuit Judge John Cooper held an emergency hearing by telephone and ruled after taking testimony from Burton and Bures-Foresthoefel, but without obtaining a second medical opinion. The doctor said Burton's membranes had ruptured, that she was having early contractions and the fetus was in a breech position. Judicial rules bar Cooper from commenting on pending cases beyond what is said in the court record. Meggs, the prosecutor, said there was no time to get a second opinion because the situation was so dire: Burton was threatening to leave the hospital and her doctor believed that would have endangered the fetus. "Sometimes there is not time for two doctors," Meggs said. "It's not time for a committee." A three-judge panel of Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal heard oral argument earlier this month but has not indicated when it will rule. There have been a few other cases nationwide that involve similar efforts by courts to intervene in pregnancies: • In 1987, a Washington, D.C., judge ordered a woman who was dying of cancer to have a C-section, which she had refused, to save her fetus. The baby died within two hours of delivery and the mother died two days later. An appeals court later ruled the judge should not have ordered the C-section. • In 2003, prosecutors in Salt Lake City charged an acknowledged cocaine addict who had a history of mental health problems with murder when she refused to have a C-section for two weeks before finally agreeing to the procedure. One of her twins died in the womb during the delay. Through a plea deal, the charge was later reduced to child endangerment. • In 2004, a hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., obtained a court order to force a woman to have a C-section because her seventh baby was oversized, but the order was too late. The mother, whose first six children each weighed nearly 12 pounds at birth, went to another hospital and delivered an 11-pound, 9-ounce girl naturally. • Also in 2004, a judge in Rochester, N.Y., ordered a homeless woman not to get pregnant again without court approval after she lost custody of several neglected children. Dr. Michael Grodin, a physician and professor of health law, bioethics and human rights at Boston University, said doctors should never resort to court orders. "People have the absolute right to refuse treatment ...," Grodin said. "It's unconscionable. ... It's an affront to women." (Message edited by p47b on February 22, 2010) | ||
| Drkside79 |
 | ||
| Firebolt32 |
"The entire experience was horrible and I am still very upset about it," Burton said through her lawyer. "I hope nobody else has to go through what I went through." How about the kid that never had a chance to live because of her stupidity? IQ tests should be mandatory before breeding takes place...! | ||
| Hootowl |
" raising questions about where a mother's right to decide her own medical treatment ends and where the priority of protecting a fetus begins." If abortion doesn't raise that issue, nothing will. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Next time you are pregnant you too can make that choice. It's amazing that all of you seem to want government out of your lives but yet you want them in on the abortion topic. It's legal it should be legal and if you don't want abortion don't have one. | ||
| Reepicheep |
The cop out on abortion is that they did sort of claim to address the rights of a fetus to be protected. Lots of the abortion ruling talks about "viability outside the womb". Of course, the technology since 1970 something doesn't seem to be updated... I think you can to some degree separate two issues here. The abortion question ought to be an intellectually honest decision. Start with a "collection of cells", that if left un-molested and with no medical intervetions of any kind, would in most cases result in a perfectly normal human being within 9 months. Should this "collection of cells" be entitled to the same constitutional and legal rights as my collection of cells? Seems like an easy question to me... if I was in a coma and there was a 90%+ probability that 9 months later I would be a "normal person", then you better not terminate me. Most conservatives would likely agree with me. The second choice is the threshold for legal over rides of free will and medical informed consent. I would say that there is probably a place for this in extreme cases, but there has to be an extremely high bar to be crossed before you effectively "arrest" a person and force medical procedures upon them. Interestingly, most conservatives would likely agree with me here as well. Making abortion illegal would be one of these extreme cases where free will and informed consent may not be enough. The collection of cells is already there, will more then likely be a normal human being in 9 months, and you are asking for an intervention that will destroy them. If you could do a "fetus transplant" it is none of my business. I don't want my laws on your body. But you can't yet, and if I have to choose between my laws making you endure a pregnancy or terminate what would otherwise be a normal human being, I'll have to choose the lesser of two evils, and let the cells grow up to be able to make their own decisions (and vote). On the other hand, if I needed a kidney, and you have two, I shouldn't be able to force you to give one of yours to me. Maybe I am being inconsistent, but the "intervention" part seems critical. There should be a high bar if you are going to change the natural course of something, be it terminating a normal pregnancy (an intervention for sure for the collection of cells that will soon and inevitably be a normal human being) or an intervention forcing a healthy person to have a surgery they don't need (forced harvesting of a kidney). An interesting moral question for sure... | ||
| Drkside79 |
Let me clarify I DID NOT SAY I SUPPORT ABORTION. I SUPPORT a woman's right to have one or not to have one for that matter. Oh and while were at it I also support stem cell testing and kittens. | ||
| Hootowl |
"It's amazing that all of you seem to want government out of your lives but yet you want them in on the abortion topic." I don't see a disparity. We all have the right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness according to the Constitution. I want the government to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens. I want the government to prevent the murder of its citizens, or at least make the act of murdering an unborn child illegal. | ||
| Hootowl |
You support the "right" of a woman to choose to hire someone to murder her baby? Would you support the "right" of a woman to hire someone to murder her toddler? I don't see a difference between the two situations. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
If you want government controlled health care.... expect their meddling in it to increase. good luck trying to convince them otherwise. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I want the government to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens. I want the government to prevent the murder of its citizens, or at least make the act of murdering an unborn child illegal. We don't have the problems about abortion in Europe that you seem to have in the US. My question though, is how do you define at which point an unborn foetus becomes a citizen? Reading the whole of the original piece, I find it bizarre that a woman who (apart from smoking during pregnancy) had done all the right things in going in for tests & treatment was prevented from having any say in where her medical treatment was provided. From this distance it looks like a State Attorney trying to make a name for himself. Before anyone asks, my position on abortion is pro-choice, or pro-death as the pro-lifers would have it. Sorry, stole that last bit from George Carlin, but it's relevant anyway. | ||
| Hootowl |
"was prevented from having any say in where her medical treatment was provided" Yes, that part is absolutely wrong. It's wrongful imprisonment in my opinion, and they should be held criminally liable. | ||
| P47b |
Reading the whole of the original piece, I find it bizarre that a woman who (apart from smoking during pregnancy) had done all the right things in going in for tests & treatment was prevented from having any say in where her medical treatment was provided. From this distance it looks like a State Attorney trying to make a name for himself. Thanks Mr_Grumpy you said what I was going to say. Even thou I posted it. (Message edited by p47b on February 22, 2010) | ||
| Drkside79 |
Holy crap we agree on something It's wrongful imprisonment in my opinion, and they should be held criminally liable. | ||
| Orman1649 |
A fetus is not a citizen, baby, or toddler. You can't murder something that couldn't survive. If a child is on life support and a parent decides to pull the plug, it's not considered murder. It's the same concept, the mother's body is life support for the fetus. The government is diving WAY too much into everyones lives. A tax on sweets & juice? Telling a private citizen he can't allow people to smoke in his establishment?...you don't like it...DON'T GO THERE! Giant fines for anyone that upsets the FCC...I guess the rating system isn't good enough and it's hard for people to to just turn the dial off or change the station. Completely ignoring anything from the people and doing whatever the hell you want. "Suspending" a bill the people pass a which requires 2/3 majority to pass new taxes right after a whole gob of government slugs took their friends, family, secretarys, and anyone else they could cram into piles of jets and took a free ride on tax dollars to Copenhagen where they all stayed in expensive 5 star hotels for a "climate summit." While we are on the subject, why is it MY job to support generation after generation of welfareites while they sit at home pimping out their kids. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Wow, I live in Tallahassee and this hardly even been a blip on the local news or newspaper. That said, there is a huge dichotomy on how unborn children are treated under law...... Murder a pregnent woman and get charged w/ 2 counts of murder. A woman can have her unborn child killed and there's nothing wrong with that under the law. A woman can do things that are known to increase the risks that there will be problems with her pregnency and the development of her child and there's nothing wrong with that under the law. Eventually this will get worked out but its gonna be a rocky road getting there. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Murder a pregnent woman and get charged w/ 2 counts of murder. A woman can have her unborn child killed and there's nothing wrong with that under the law." Causing the death of a fetus will also land you a murder charge. You know, unless the mother hires you to kill it, then it's OK. | ||
| Fahren |
Wow - this thread is nowhere near as fun as I thought it would be from its title! | ||
| Drkside79 |
Murder a pregnent woman and get charged w/ 2 counts of murder. Heres part of that law you are clinging to (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. (Message edited by drkside79 on February 22, 2010) | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Wow - this thread is nowhere near as fun as I thought it would be from its title! Fahren, before I read the thread I was thinking the same as you were. I even had the post written in my head before I started reading.  | ||
| Hootowl |
Clinging to? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean I'm clinging to it in the sense that I'm try to warp its meaning to suit my own argument? Seems pretty clear to me. If the woman wants the baby, it is alive and worthy of being protected under the law. If not, it is a collection of cells that can be eradicated like the tumor they are. Those two positions can not mutually coexist in any society that is being honest with itself. | ||
| Blake |
Well said Jeff. I cannot agree more strongly. | ||
| Reepicheep |
If a kid is comatose, with a 90+% chance of a total recovery in less then 9 months, and you pull the plug, it IS murder. And the dr who allowed it would loose his license. If there is virtually no chance of recovery, that's a different question, and the answer is the same be it a person or a fetus. If you are passed out drunk, can somebody kill you, provided they finish before you are capable of waking up? | ||
| Hootowl |
You're trying to create disparity where none exists. The fetus, if left alone, will live. The dying child on life support who has no hope of recovery will not. The two are very different situations. | ||
| Tnxbrider |
I've wasted my time, I thought I was going to see some weird pictures... I actually didn't look for hours after first seeing the post, but finally curiosity got the best of me... now I feel all ashamed and dirty, I gotta get out of the gutter. T | ||
| Aesquire |
My position on abortion is that I'm against it, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger and in rape cases. I'm also male so I feel I have limited say in the matter, as it should be. Abortion/reproduction choices should be Voluntary by the responsible female adult mother involved only. If you try and make abortion mandatory, I will object in the strongest possible terms. This IS a question of responsibility. In reponsible/adult questions I say a judgment call must be made. a 15 year old MAY be more responsible than a 20+ crackhead. One should be very very careful deciding that someone is not competent to handle their own affairs. if you figure your doctor is screwing up, you want to leave & seek another.... and cops MAKE you stay in bed & bad things happen, in this case a dead baby, I'd be more than angry. The doctor may or may not have been wrong. Sometimes it's hard to tell even after. What was the follow up the Judge made? He knew he had made a snap decision with limited data. Sometimes you HAVE TO do that. Did the judge go to this ladies hospital room to see if she was incompetent? If not, I'd sue him for his total lifetime worth. | ||
| Slaughter |
Allow post-partum abortion. I would recommend post-partum abortions up to the age of maybe 7 years. 10 if the parents are still inconvenienced. Abortion is an assertive, pro-active form of Darwinism. We don't want THOSE people raising children or bearing unhealthy children. (Message edited by slaughter on February 22, 2010) | ||
| Too_tall_ss |
• In 2004, a hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., obtained a court order to force a woman to have a C-section because her seventh baby was oversized, but the order was too late. The mother, whose first six children each weighed nearly 12 pounds at birth, went to another hospital and delivered an 11-pound, 9-ounce girl naturally. I would say the judge was just looking out for the husband on that one...  | ||
| Whatever |
A fetus is not a citizen, baby, or toddler. Exactly. A fetus is a fetus. That is why they call it a fetus. Aborting a fetus is wrong but killing innocent women and children is "collateral damage"? As long as GOD is on our side? | ||
| Froggy |
Slaughter, I agree 100%. I was discussing offline earlier today how much I can't stand kids, and wished there was a way to make it easier for them to choke and die from hot dogs. |
