Slippery slope much?Follow

Florida court orders woman to bed rest against her will

Now, while the woman SHOULD have been taking care of her pregnancy if she planned to keep it, and while I DO applaud her care providers for trying to find a way to keep her from having a premature or stillborn baby, it is absolutely inappropriate for the court to try to take her right to make her own medical decisions out of her hands. She sought her doctor's advice, she decided against taking it for whatever reasons (be they right or wrong.) That should be the end of the discussion. Her body, her choice.

Putting the safety of a gestating fetus above the will of the mother and her right to choose what to do with her own body is clearly a step toward imposing even further limits on the right to choose. Which--though they seem to be pussyfooting around coming out and actually saying it--is clearly why the ACLU has taken up the standard in this case.

The fact that this COULD also lead to criminalizing behavior such as not taking prenatal vitamins, not undergoing prenatal screening tests (some of which are of very questionable benefit or necessity,) smoking, drinking alcohol, drinking coffee, or hell, eating chocolate during pregnancy is not a small concern either. We could eventually have a situation where a woman is prosecuted for not "doing the right thing" according to the doctrine of the Mommy Wars Prenatal Bible, or making any sort of alternative, non-mainstream-sanctioned choice for herself doing pregnancy.

Edited, Jan 17th 2010 12:25pm by Ambrya

I did like this:



A lot of women are browbeaten into unnecessary c-sections with the threat of having a baby that is too big, which is problematic for a couple reasons.

1) Ultrasound estimations of fetal weight can be off by as much as 2lbs or more. At 35 weeks, I was told Tristan was 7.5 lbs and on track for being 9-10 lbs at birth. He was 8 lbs (admittedly some of this may be because I was absolutely ruthless about controlling my carb intake once the threat of gestational diabetes came up; I actually lost over 30 lbs [net loss] while pregnant.)

2) While the risk of shoulder dystocia DOES increase with a large baby, large babies are NOT the boogieman doctors make them out to be, and women ARE capable of birthing 10 (or more) lb babies vaginally, especially with a skilled practitioner who knows how to get a SD baby out without nerve damage. Doctors like to default to c-section when the baby may be big because if shoulder dystocia with resulting nerve damage does occur, they're often slapped with a malpractice lawsuit. Which is why I would have no problems with making women who DO choose to vaginally deliver a (estimated) large baby sign a waver of some sort. It might cut down on the practice of defensive medicine.

Oh yeah!

I think not drinking while pregnant should be more then just a guideline.

edit: Interestingly enough, there was a court case in Canada a while ago where child care officials tried to essentially force a women to stop drinking during her pregnancy. It went to the supreme court and an abortion case where the outcome was ruled that a fetus does not have the rights of a human was cited as common law that prevented anyone forcing the women to stop drinking, so she added to a third down syndrome kid to the two she already had.

Edited, Jan 17th 2010 5:49pm by Xsarus

It's been argued that the shock to the system from quitting by a moderate to heavy smoker is worse than simply cutting back.

I've heard that theory too, and seen it put successfully into practice.

That's what my doctor told me. If you're comfortable and able to quit, then by all means quit. But if it's going to stress you out (and I mean seriously stress, not just annoy) then it's best to cut back.

Survival of the fittest and all that.

With their sandwich-making ability impaired, what else are they going to do?

"She felt people had stopped listening to her," said Abrams. "She became an incubator for the state and stopped being an adult woman who could make her own decisions. The court order was all about the fetus, not the mother's health. She had no rights."

Pretty much sums it up right there. I couldn't believe the stories about women being charged with murder for refusing a c-section. That's just completely and utterly asinine. I don't know when people in general decided that they had the right to disregard a mother's health in favor of an unborn child, or when they decided that simply because medicine could intervene in the natural order of things that it should be mandated, but society in general needs to take a step back and realize that we're still just animals, creatures of nature, and certain things should never be viewed from a purely scientific, religious or ethical perspective. Until such time that baby is a living breathing creature free of it's mother's womb, it should have absolutely no rights that are not extended directly to the mother.

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the situation. Suggesting that a pregnant woman not smoke isn't disregarding the mother's health in favor of the child's, it's regarding both.

You might try to argue that all the suggestions put a psychological strain on the mother, but I have never heard of a situation where someone recommended a pregnant women engage in an activity that was directly and knowingly hazardous to her health for the sake of the baby (except in certain extreme situations).

Edited, Jan 18th 2010 11:55am by Allegory

Fudge tabbed browsing. I'll fix this post in a bit.

Too summarize what I had so painstakingly written before I confuse the posting tab with another very closable tab, my post was taking exception to the mundane situations that had been complained about in this thread. If you can't, as a pregnant mother, avoid engaging in activities you shouldn't be doing often even when not pregnant, then I find it difficulty to feel that your burden of public shame is a crippling crime against your human rights.

The case in the OP is a more extreme situation. I tend to favor the mother's side, but trying to drawn a line becomes tricky. What if the mother had been blatantly negligent in caring for herself and the hospital offered a significantly safer environment for both entities?