Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Utah Woman Charged With Murdering Fetus

from zero

New member
Hmm ... What do you think of this?



SALT LAKE CITY - As Melissa Ann Rowland's unborn twins got closer to birth, doctors repeatedly told her they would likely die if she did not have a Caesarean section. She refused, and one later was stillborn.

Authorities charged 28-year-old Rowland with murder on Thursday, saying she exhibited "depraved indifference to human life," according to court documents. Prosecutors said Rowland didn't want to be scarred, and one nurse told police that Rowland said she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that."

The case could affect abortion rights and open the door to the prosecution of mothers who smoke or don't follow their obstetrician's diet, said Marguerite Driessen, a law professor at Brigham Young University.

"It's very troubling to have somebody come in and say we're going to charge this mother for murder because we don't like the choices she made," she said.

Court documents did not list an address for Rowland, and she is not listed in telephone books for the Salt Lake City area. It could not immediately be determined whether she had an attorney.

Rowland was warned numerous times between Christmas and Jan. 9 that her unborn twins would likely die if she did not get immediate medical treatment, the documents allege. When she delivered them on Jan. 13, one survived and the other was stillborn.

The woman sought medical advice in December because she hadn't felt the fetuses move, documents said.

Regina Davis, a nurse at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake, told police that during a visit there, Rowland was recommended two hospitals to go to for immediate care. Rowland allegedly said she would rather have both twins die before she went to either of the suggested hospitals.

On Jan. 2, a doctor at LDS Hospital saw Rowland and recommended she immediately undergo a C-section based on the results of an ultrasound and the fetus' slowing heart rates. Rowland left after signing a document stating that she understood that leaving might result in death or brain injury to one or both twins, the doctor told police.

The same day, a nurse at Salt Lake Regional Hospital saw Rowland, who allegedly told her she had left LDS Hospital because the doctor wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone," a procedure that would "ruin her life."

LDS Hospital can't comment on the case because of medical privacy issues and the pending court case, said spokesman Robert Pexton.

The doctor who performed an autopsy found that the fetus died two days before delivery and would have survived if Rowland had undergone a C-section when urged to do so. It was not immediately clear how far along Rowland was in her pregnancy.

She was charged in Salt Lake County with one first-degree felony count of criminal homicide. Rowland was being held on $250,000 bail at the Salt Lake County jail, and was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday.

If convicted, she could be sentenced to between five years and life in prison.

A spokesman for the district attorney, Kent Morgan, said Rowland is married and has other children, but he did not know how many.

"We are unable to find any reason other than the cosmetic motivations by the mother" for her decision, Morgan said.

Caesarean sections usually involve delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and front wall of the uterus. Dr. Christian Morgan, a family practice doctor who regularly performs C-sections at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, said he had never seen vertical skin incisions performed at LDS Hospital for a first-time C-section.

"Even when you need to get a baby out in minutes, it can still be done in the bikini incision," Christian Morgan said.
 
i think we are heading down the road to banning abortion.....more right wing religious nut agendas.....
 
Who needs to be punished is the poor sop that got that ugly bitch pregnant in the first place. If you see a picture of her, scars are the least of her ugliness worries.
 
Being that abortion on demand is legal, I fail to see how this country, and its representatives can make such an argument, for it invalidates the pseudo-right to abortion. It is a double standard.

On a realistic level, the woman should be charged with manslaughter or some lesser form of murder. As a pregnant mother, she has obliged herself to the care of her children, and with this obligation comes actions in times of need. She rejected a reasonable action which could have saved her child and thus discarded her duty.
 
atlantabiolab said:
Being that abortion on demand is legal, I fail to see how this country, and its representatives can make such an argument, for it invalidates the pseudo-right to abortion. It is a double standard.

On a realistic level, the woman should be charged with manslaughter or some lesser form of murder. As a pregnant mother, she has obliged herself to the care of her children, and with this obligation comes actions in times of need. She rejected a reasonable action which could have saved her child and thus discarded her duty.

I know you're always talking about health care and here's a perfect example for your belief to be put to the test.

What would you say if this was a woman who had no health care and could not afford to visit the hospitals, but wanted both her babies? Should she have:

Not gone because she has no health insurance and knew she could only rely on herself, thus a baby died?

OR

Gone to the hospital, not paid the bill for the surgery, eventually making those with insurance (you) cover her costs?

OR

Something else?
 
They're basically saying that the state can MAKE YOU UNDERGO SURGERY. Anyone have issues with that?

If someone is has a terminal illness that only surgery can save but doesn't want the surgery, should we make them do it?
 
casualbb said:
They're basically saying that the state can MAKE YOU UNDERGO SURGERY. Anyone have issues with that?

If someone is has a terminal illness that only surgery can save but doesn't want the surgery, should we make them do it?

It would be immoral for government to force a person to undergo medical treatment against their will (although it is done all the time in the psychiatric community), but it can punish one after the fact if the act deprived another of its full protection, which is the above case. The surgery was not for the sake of the mother, but for the infant. This is not about "my body" arguments, it is protection of one from the negligence of another.

I don't agree with force to treat a person, but I am for punishment for those who disregard the rights of others.
 
casualbb said:
They're basically saying that the state can MAKE YOU UNDERGO SURGERY. Anyone have issues with that?

If someone is has a terminal illness that only surgery can save but doesn't want the surgery, should we make them do it?


This is why I'm pro choice. It's the woman's body, it's her unborn babies, it's her choice: PERIOD. No one should be able to force her to do ANYTHING until those babies are born and living on their own faculties. Not the hospital, not the doctors, not the state of Utah, and certainly not the government.

If the baby dies then it's on her conscience, she will have to live with it because it is her fault. I hate people who force their own beliefs and opinions on others, that makes me red with contempt and anger. :mad:
 
Forge said:
This is why I'm pro choice. It's the woman's body, it's her unborn babies, it's her choice: PERIOD. No one should be able to force her to do ANYTHING until those babies are born and living on their own faculties. Not the hospital, not the doctors, not the state of Utah, and certainly not the government.

If the baby dies then it's on her conscience, she will have to live with it because it is her fault. I hate people who force their own beliefs and opinions on others, that makes me red with contempt and anger. :mad:
 
She should be held responsible for not listening to medical advice and knowing what was going to happen to those babies. All she cared about was messing up that ulgy ass body of hers...and for what? I don't know who the hell would have had sex with her in the first place!!!!!YIKES
 
She was/is crazy. Read an update in this mornings paper where she had previous children via c-section. I think it also said that the kids had recently been removed from her custody.
 
tough call, but as the law states it, it aint murder ntil the baby comes out....atlantabiolab is rigt in that you can;t have a abortion after the 1st trimester and not call it murder but allow this as murder


if she wanted the two babies she is a fucing stupid bitch and i hope they sterilise her. she didnt let her two babies come into this world because she was afraid of an outdated surgical op, they still do the smiling face incision...
 
Apöllo said:
I know you're always talking about health care and here's a perfect example for your belief to be put to the test.

What would you say if this was a woman who had no health care and could not afford to visit the hospitals, but wanted both her babies? Should she have:

Not gone because she has no health insurance and knew she could only rely on herself, thus a baby died?

OR

Gone to the hospital, not paid the bill for the surgery, eventually making those with insurance (you) cover her costs?

OR

Something else?

In the current state of affairs, I doubt you can find a state which does not provide free healthcare, or at least subsidized healthcare (payment based on ability to pay). Also, hospitals are very willing, nowadays, to work out payments for service, not requiring full payment immediately.

A freer market would drive the costs of medical treatment down, due to competition for services. Take the current corrective eye treatments available, such as RK, Lasik's, etc.; because these treatments are not often covered by insurance, the costs of these procedures are low -here in the Atlanta area, Lasik can be performed for $400 an eye. Cosmetic surgery is fast becoming more affordable to meet the demand of the average consumer, because it is not covered by insurance. Abortions are very cheap compared to other equally invasive hospital services, because they are usually not covered by insurance.

If medical care were dictated by user pay, the costs would be drastically lower, but insurance and social care programs drive the costs up. People need to remember that our grandparents had doctors who would come to their house to treat them and they had no insurance or Medicare to cover the costs.
 
danielson said:
tough call, but as the law states it, it aint murder ntil the baby comes out....atlantabiolab is rigt in that you can;t have a abortion after the 1st trimester and not call it murder but allow this as murder


if she wanted the two babies she is a fucing stupid bitch and i hope they sterilise her. she didnt let her two babies come into this world because she was afraid of an outdated surgical op, they still do the smiling face incision...
Agreed - it is inconsistent but then again im in favour of mandatory sterilisation for all those who have abortions.
I remember whilst in college a very clever girl who got pregnant , someone I considered a friend , she was fully convinced that abortion was murder but yet since society let her away with it she was gonna do it...... Ain't life grand ?
 
atlantabiolab said:
It would be immoral for government to force a person to undergo medical treatment against their will (although it is done all the time in the psychiatric community),

But that's exactly what they're doing: inducing someone to act through threat of force. That's called coercion.
 
casualbb said:
But that's exactly what they're doing: inducing someone to act through threat of force. That's called coercion.

There are some situations which we accept some amount of coercion in choice: murder, theft, rape, etc. This is because your actions now are converging on the rights of others, which you do not have the right to infringe upon. In this case, she could have taken her chance and produced two healthy babies, and it would be her choice to take such a chance, but if, as in this case, one dies from willful negligence, then she should be punished. Her actions caused harm to another; I fail to see how this is any different than numerous cases in society where one person acts negligently and causes harm to befall on another.
 
atlantabiolab said:
There are some situations which we accept some amount of coercion in choice: murder, theft, rape, etc. This is because your actions now are converging on the rights of others, which you do not have the right to infringe upon. In this case, she could have taken her chance and produced two healthy babies, and it would be her choice to take such a chance, but if, as in this case, one dies from willful negligence, then she should be punished. Her actions caused harm to another; I fail to see how this is any different than numerous cases in society where one person acts negligently and causes harm to befall on another.


Funny - we have very conflicting views on the Pro-life vs. Pro-Choice debate but I have to admit I agree with you fully on your statements made and could not have stated it better even if I tried.
 
If someone needs another's bone marrow and they refuse to give it, would that be murder?
 
Apöllo said:
If someone needs another's bone marrow and they refuse to give it, would that be murder?


No.

Being in last month of pregnancy and refusing help for your baby that's going to die without help is different than a bone marrow donation.
 
Apöllo said:
If someone needs another's bone marrow and they refuse to give it, would that be murder?

You have no obligation to that person, no ties that bind. You are no different than the next person in society, who could provide bone marrow and you acted in no manner which produced the current state which the patient is in.

In the case of pregnancy, you have an obligation to the health and welfare of the infant, for it was your consent to sex which produced the infant and placed it in the situation it is currently in. You freely chose your actions and the consequences of such actions (even if remotely possible), so the burden is yours.
 
What if the lady was a swimsuit model and her career was on the line?
 
Top Bottom