Mom Refuses C-Section, Baby Taken Away

[BigBird]

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/paren...n-away-492112/


As a mother of two who had to have C-sections with both my pregnancies, I'm not sure how to react to this one. I mean, the woman might have been taking some unnecessary risks, but to have her baby taken away because she refused the surgery seems excessive to me.

I think it's dangerous, too, because it might encourage other pregnant women who want to have natural deliveries to forgo medical care and/or choose to give birth without medical help. There's probably more to it than is shared in the article, but it still seems excessive.

Thoughts?

[ditchdj]

As I recall, CPS in New Jersey has been under increasing fire over a spat of stupid parents murdering their own children there not too long ago. This is likely the "fallout" from people demanding that CPS "do something". Now they have.

[BarbieGirl]

Unless there was an obvious danger to the child and she still refused then I 'might' agree, but as the article stands it was a just in case that she refused and the baby was born without any complications, totally uncalled for. And can't doctors bypass some requests if it is a true emergency?

[gremcint]

Unless there was an obvious danger to the child and she still refused then I 'might' agree, but as the article stands it was a just in case that she refused and the baby was born without any complications, totally uncalled for. And can't doctors bypass some requests if it is a true emergency?

A woman in New Jersey refused to consent to a C-section during labor in the event that her baby was in distress.

I still need more information to make a judgement on this. Saying in distress is actually really vague, we also don't know what kind of woman this was. What I mean by that is sure cps started the process but the judge upheld it but we don't know if she is a drug addict or abuser so the judge may have had good reason to uphold this. I agree this could set an awkward precedent with other expecting mothers but without more information being released we have no idea what the real reasons may be, which is even worse as then it's more likely to be spun out of control and frighten a lot more people than if we did have the details.

Edit: they do link the court ruling but the link is dead.
Edit 2: they link another article that also links the court ruling but the link is also dead.
Edit 3: the second article links to this which describes the issues in greater detail and points out the woman has been in psyciatric care but still doesn't link the court ruling.

[AnaKhouri]

I just had a c-section this past Saturday. They did not ask beforehand if I would consent, instead they waited until they knew the baby wasn't coming out the natural way and then explained to me why they thought a section was the best option.

It does seem weird to ask like that beforehand and then base a decision on that. If something had happened and they had asked again, surely the woman would have said yes. Perhaps she just wished to avoid a section that wasn't necessarily warranted.

[Aethian]

Really need more information on this...too many dead links.

[BookstoreEscapee]

I didn't try the links but I read through some of the comments. A couple people summarized the parents' actions during the court proceedings...such as not showing up for them. Apparently she also refused oxygen and a fetal monitor, lied about her medical history, fought with the medical staff and refused to even let the doctor in the room. There was also the phrase "psychotic ideation" involved (apparently a quote from the husband, if I read right). FTR, I don't know exactly what links the commenter got those details from. Sounds like there's more to the story than just what's presented in this article.

One of the commenters quoted the judge as having said something along the lines that he was ready to give the baby back before the parents' own actions did them in.

[PepperElf]

i won't say for or against this... too many factors and i don't have all the facts really


but i will say this...

If you've had a C-section before, be very careful with having a regular vaginal birth afterwards

Blanking out so I don't freak any mother's to be:
one of my relatives did that, first birth was C-section, second was vaginal 7 years after the first. There was tearing of the old c-section scars. she's been advised to not have anymore children

[Ree]

While this has stayed away from any controversy so far, the fact is, this is a fratching topic, simply because of the territory that it could head to, so I'm going to close it on CS.
You are welcome to repost on fratching.