Woman loses baby for refusing C-Section?!!!

[EquineMum]

I am beyond stunned. Speechless doesn't even come close. From my understanding, this seems to be in the USA?!?!? :eek: Gobsmacked.

http://news.change.org/stories/mother-loses-baby-for-three-years-due-to-refusing-c-section-pre-consent

ETA - the article is from August last year, so it's not recent, but I was only just made aware of it and wanted people's thoughts/comments.

[Trinie]

W. O. W.
I'm gobsmacked... I would have refused to sign paperwork too upon admission to hospital. She could have (and no doubt would have) signed the paperwork if and when a c-section was required!
That poor family.

[Lillynix]

I remember reading that article when it was first published, I am just as angered now as I was then.

This is an utterly atrocious situation. She didn't NEED a c-section, it was a "precautionary" form they wanted her to sign "just in case" which is ridiculous, there's nothing wrong with signing a consent from IF it is needed. If they want to make sure women are fully informed beforehand, then fine, but you still don't need to sign a c-section consent form in advance. That is giving Doctors, Midwives and Hospital Policy too much power. It is still the woman's body and still the womans choice.

Sadly though, I fear that something like this could happen in Australia too, not so much for refusing to sign a consent form, but for those who choose homebirth/freebirth and even those who choose to VBAC/VBAmultipleC. WIth the state our maternity system is in and these choices being increasingly taken away from women, it seems to be the next illogical step for "the system" to make.

[borntobemummy]

Faaaaaaarrr out!!!! :o
That is wrong on sooo many levels, I can't believe it! :o

[Boobycino]

That is the most disturbing thing I've read in ages!

I hope when she gets her child back she can sue the freaking pants off the hospital!!!!!!

That's wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Wrong on so many levels. It's utter BS!!!!

I gave consent verbally. I was asked a few difficult questions - like my full name and dob and some other things I guess to prove I was of sound mind consenting. If I hadn't have been of sound mind they could have made the decision for me anyway because they have a duty of care. While they shouldn't perform unnecessary csections without consent surely they do perform them in such situations where the woman can't give consent - because if she cant consent because she's somehow incapacitated then the hospital would be able to take over the situation.

I cannot fathom how one human being does that to another. How to those sick evil horrible people on a power trip sleep at night?!???!

Sorry, I want to punch someone. :o

[~*clairesmum*~]

That is just shocking

[Boobycino]

Re-reading it, she didnt get her child back because after they unlawfully took her newborn she was hostile...

.... Far freaking out I'd have been friggin violent too. ANYONE would have. ANY human being would be hysterical and violent.

Now I REALLY want to punch someone :eek:

[share a book]

How horrible!!! Then what after 3 years they take a little bub from one home to reunite with a mother she's never had the opportunity to learn to love? What a mess :(

Trying to scare people into having a c/s which is completely horrific in itself but scaring them by taking away their newborn! They are then also preventing that baby from accessing the mother's milk! How horrible!

That's disturbing but I'm not surprised at where it happened :no:

[EquineMum]

Re-reading it, she didnt get her child back because after they unlawfully took her newborn she was hostile...

.... Far freaking out I'd have been friggin violent too. ANYONE would have. ANY human being would be hysterical and violent.

Now I REALLY want to punch someone :eek:

It's pretty horrific, isn't it? Sometimes I am ashamed to be human. No animal on earth would do this to another animal....it's just so WRONG!!! :banghead:

[Atlantic Puffin]

Absolutely shocked. This is disgusting. I would be fighting tooth and nail, and when I got my baby back I would be suing the cr*p out of the hospital, the whole damn welfare dept, and anyone else involved.

I am shocked that this happened in this day and age.... Especially considering she gave birth vaginally, and without complications.

It might be different if she refused a c section and the baby was in extreme distress... And then the baby lost it's fight for life because the mother flat out continued to refuse. But thats not what were talking about here. This is simply .... Horrific.

[twotrunks]

If this were all there was to the story it would be outrageous.But i find it difficult to believe that is all there is to the story. Just doing a quick google, it is mostly forums and blogs talking about it. it's quite hard to find any reputable sources discussing the case. but from the little I read there was a lot more to it including psychiatric illnesses. But it does fit in nicely with the anti-medical-profession type activism. There is no doubt the USA's medical system is screwed-up, but let's not be too quick to judge a case like this without all the facts.

[One of THOSE mums!]

I don't know what to say. I am appalled. Shocked. Speechless.

[peanuthead]

when i read the title of this thread my first thought was "a baby died because a mother wouldn't permit a c-section".
i'm glad i actually read the article & realised it was a pre-consent for an unnecessary c-section. i am horrified by this story. i know for me a natural birth was so important & there was no way i would give consent "just in case". i am mortified that if i was living in New Jersey this would result in my son being taken away from me!

[EquineMum]

If this were all there was to the story it would be outrageous.But i find it difficult to believe that is all there is to the story. Just doing a quick google, it is mostly forums and blogs talking about it. it's quite hard to find any reputable sources discussing the case. but from the little I read there was a lot more to it including psychiatric illnesses. But it does fit in nicely with the anti-medical-profession type activism. There is no doubt the USA's medical system is screwed-up, but let's not be too quick to judge a case like this without all the facts.

It depends on where you're looking. There's more on the case here (http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/2009/7/21/refusal-of-unnecesarean-leads-to-loss-of-custody-vs-story.html) -

[Boobycino]

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/FGopinion.pdf

It's pretty painful to read my head hurts and I got to page 18 - but I was thinking there had to be more too it...

... There's really not.

The court case wasn't about the csection it was about her mental health. After being bullied to sigh preconsent she was uncooperative and irrational. She did refuse fetal monitoring and oxygen etc but she also felt threatened enough she called the police while in labour.

It doesn't make sense though because there are two very different accounts. She says the refused to give her an epidural, they say she wouldn't hold still for it to be administered.

But while they yammered at her about fetal distress they called two psychiatric assessments of a woman IN LABOUR.

She was combative about leaving her baby but from what I read (my brain was slowly dying so please correct me if I'm wrong) she left rhe hospital believing they were keeping her premmie baby because it had jaundice? She didn't know they were putting the baby in foster care. They tried to use the fact she didn't have a cot ready for her premature baby - but she had everything else so the courts dismissed it.

She brought gifts and nappies bottles etc for her baby in foster care.

But then she became 'irrational' saying her baby had been kidnaped.

They tried to use that at one point she'd said that she would be happy if her baby was placed with a loving family against her?!?! Umm yeah cos that's an awful thing for a mother to wish for her baby she can't get back?!

I got that far and thought even if she started throwing bricks through windows and making death threats it would be justifiable, so I didn't feel the need (or have rhe brain power) to read on.

But yeah, reading more it's even more horrible than because she wouldn't sign a pre-consent form. The story is deeper and darker and actually more of a discrimination against mental illness because the only leg they had to stand on was she had bi-polar and PTSD relating to a work injury? And had stopped taking her prescribed medication during pregnancy because she didn't want to harm her unborn baby.

It's all madness....

[trishalishous]

this is shocking (and why im refusing to give birth in our regional hospital, as im high risk and they wont let me attempt a VB)

[Pussyfoot]

There is actually quite a lot of articles about this case which is currently before the Court in New Jersey as a final decision on the fate of the little girl is being made. They've been waiting since last August for that decision. :eek:

It would appear that, according to documents in the public domain, that the baby's father was given access in 2009 but that the child had to remain in foster care.

Incredibly, the state of New Jersey ruled that mothers have no rights in childbirth. This is mindboggling coming from a country that rants on about freedom.

And they call America the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave eh? :confused:

[TNTbub]

Its in America i just asked my American friend is this stock standard. Yes in some hospitals this is standard. We,must remember all hospitals are private over there, they have board directors deciding what happens in their hospital.

I would have just signed the form