Here’s the story from KSL TV:
Doctors warned a woman to have a caesarian section to save her baby, she refused, the baby died, and now the mother is charged with murder. It’s a case that’s already making national headlines and sparking a heated debate over ethics, fairness and the right to life.
Here’s the story from KSL TV:
Doctors warned a woman to have a caesarian section to save her baby, she refused, the baby died, and now the mother is charged with murder. It’s a case that’s already making national headlines and sparking a heated debate over ethics, fairness and the right to life.
We’ve heard cases before where an expectant mother has been putting her fetus at risk by drinking, or using drugs, or other dangerous behavior. This one has a different twist– it wasn’t what she was doing, it was what she didn’t do.
In custody tonight, charged with murder, is 29-year old Melissa Ann Rowland. She was arrested nearly two months after the stillborn death of her child.
It’s a complicated story involving several local hospitals, doctors and nurses who continually advised that Rowland needed medical attention in order to save her baby’s life. The Salt Lake County District Attorney’s office says Rowland’s lack of action violates the law.
Kent Morgan, District Attorney’s Office: “…the conduct was that she omitted her duty to take care of her child and get affirmative treatment. That’s what makes this case so egregious.”
It started on Christmas Day at LDS hospital.
Rowland — carrying twins — told a nurse that she hadn’t felt them move. The nurse advised her to go to either Jordan Valley or Pioneer Valley Hospital. According to the charging documents, Rowland replied: “she’d rather have both her babies die before she’d go to those hospitals…”
January 2nd, she saw a doctor at LDS Hospital.
Kent Morgan, District Attorney’s Office: “She went and saw a doctor and he indicated that there were very severe medical problems at that time, and that she should immediately have a cesaerian section.”
According to the charges, the doctor told police: “She refused to have the c-section and left.” This despite being warned that lack of treatment could result in the death or severe injury of her babies.
A few blocks away she told a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital that a doctor wanted to cut her “from breast bone to pubic bone”, and that would “ruin her life”. The nurse says Rowland made a comment to the effect that she’d rather “lose one of the babies than be cut like that.”
January 9th, Rowland went to Pioneer Valley Hospital to verify that her babies were still alive. Once again she left and refused treatment after warnings that her babies are in danger.
January 13th she went back to Pioneer Valley and delivered her twins. One was dead; the autopsy shows the boy had died two days earlier.
Kent Morgan, District Attorney’s Office: “There wasn’t a lack of resources. Any one of these hospitals could have taken care of the needs and saved this child.”
Rowland is charged with murder and bail is set at $250,000. We’re told that she has other children and is married. She’ll make her first court appearance in the next day or two.
I listened to “Family Values Talk Radio”, 570 KNRS on the way home. Bob Lonsberry, ultra-conservative, was hosting the show. His opinion? That she deserves the murder charge, and one to fifteen years in prison. The vast majority of callers agreed with his assessment, though several thought she was guilty of stupidity, and not murder.
Is failing to have a medical procedure a crime? Is choosing to give birth vaginally tantamount to murder? Are we now a community that incarcerates nursing mothers because they chose to disregard their doctor’s advice?
Some few callers into Lonsberry’s show attempted to turn this around to the abortion debate: we (society at large) have a (debatable, but) definite point at which we consider a baby to be viable human life. If I recall correctly, that point is somewhere around 27 weeks (correct me if I’m wrong). Could this be considered a late-term abortion on her part? What if she was not insured, and the cost of a C-section was prohibitive? Is lack of funds, and a desire to avoid bankruptcy, a defense for allowing an unborn fetus to die?
I’m not sure about all the rationales going on, but in my mind, one thing is certain: sending a mother to jail for up to fifteen years because one of her unborn twins was born stillborn is just plain stupid. It just serves no purpose. With that in mind, the murder charge itself appears ridiculous on the face of it — yet, one person, through her inaction, allowed another human being, albeit a small one, to die.
It got me thinking about the purpose of incarceration. What’s the reason we send someone to jail, anyway? Is it to “rehabilitate” them, in hopes of preventing them from making similar mistakes? Is it to punish them by depriving them of freedom for a while? Is it to protect society from their evil by preventing them from having the choice available to hurt other people?
Perhaps the time has come for us to make certain “unusual” punishments for unusual crimes. If she’s guilty of negligent homicide, incarcerating her in this circumstance seems to serve absolutely no purpose except to perpetrate the revenge of an outraged community.
What if, for reproductive stupidity, we (society) simply removed reproductive capacity? For men, a simple surgical procedure, and they are sterile (reversibly so). For women, an Intra-Uterine device prevents pregnancy for up to a decade, and is also surgically removable.
But then we’re back into state-mandated surgical procedures, which started this whole rant of mine. If successful, I wonder what kind of barrel of monkeys this prosecution will open up?
Realize I’m just kind of writing aloud at the moment; I haven’t fully decided what to think of this yet. But it’s definitely another “fuzzy gray area” of the law that will almost certainly have major consequences on the state of judicial legislation if allowed to proceed.
As a side note, did the police beat her up on the way in or something? She looks completely miserable in the photo.
Last aside, I promise: I feel for the people of Spain today. At least 192 dead and thousands injured in a terrorist attack on trains around Madrid. I’m appalled at news coverage, however: had this happened in the U.S., a disaster like this, with more wounded than the Oklahoma City bombing, would have massive coverage. Not a single talk radio station was even discussing it today, other than a brief blurb in the on-the-hour news from most stations. I guess it’s not a big deal because it’s in Europe or something. Grr.