• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant Women Warned: Consent to Surgical Birth or Else

clownboy said:
There's some else going on here that we're not party to. Why all the legal action when she can just switch hospitals in an instant? Heck, she can do home birth and hire a midwife. None of this makes sense, except well, it IS Florida.
Click to expand...

Most hospitals here have policies on this procedure. most will not do a vaginal birth if you have had a c-section. the reason is mostly the liability. during a csection the muscles that are used in a vagina birth are usually moved or cut. while they will repair they are simply not as strong as they use to be.

if you finish reading the story she ran into complications had then had to have an emergancy csection which is even worse.
 
tres borrachos said:
Interesting.

Wow on that USA Today article. 6000 people are petitioning with her? I wonder how many of them are medical experts.
Click to expand...

0 emotional outrage is so much better.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Yea... I've heard bad things about Florida hospitals in general where this kind of thing is concerned.

I was born in one back in 1988, and, between the blatant bullying by the doctor, the casually abusive staff, and the unnecessary surgical intervention, they messed my mother up pretty bad, from what she's told me.

They apparently called CPS on a friend of hers while she was pregnant as well.
Click to expand...

My first was a bit of a frustration in that it was a catholic hospital, pretty much all that is around, and they took the baby and refused to bring it back, apparently a minor issue with the cord having been briefly around the neck. I stood up on the bed, blood still dripping, and demanded that my husband follow that baby and don't let it out of your sight. He did, thank goodness.

After that, and remember I'd been in and out of surgeries much of my young life for a heart defect, I determined that I was both the OWNER OF MY BODY, and the EMPLOYER OF THE DOCTORS AND HOSPITAL STAFF INVOLVED IN ANY PROCEDURE, and never let a either usurp my choices again. Second baby was handled much better as my attitude didn't allow for the usual shennanigans, and my hysterectomy a few years after that was a pleasure.

Never again will a doc or hospital overrule my decisions. They can convince me of their perspective, but that's the end of their power.
 
ludin said:
Most hospitals here have policies on this procedure. most will not do a vaginal birth if you have had a c-section. the reason is mostly the liability. during a csection the muscles that are used in a vagina birth are usually moved or cut. while they will repair they are simply not as strong as they use to be.

if you finish reading the story she ran into complications had then had to have an emergancy csection which is even worse.
Click to expand...

Apparently she had no problem finding one that would allow her to give it a go. I finished the story, once it was posted, and that's why the original hospital should charge her for all their legal fees.
 
MaggieD said:
It's not clear because that's not what they said. What they SAID was that THEIR hospital wouldn't permit her to give natural childbirth; and if she was IN their hospital and refused a C-Section, they would report her.

This is a ridiculous story. Don't even know why it made the news.

She wants to try natural childbirth. It's the hospital's prerogative to find that risky in her circumstances and refuse her request. It shouldn't make the news . . . she should just find a hospital who will accommodate her -- if she can.
Click to expand...

Yep, my first response would be to go to a different hospital or arrange for a midwife with hospital connection.
 
clownboy said:
Apparently she had no problem finding one that would allow her to give it a go. I finished the story, once it was posted, and that's why the original hospital should charge her for all their legal fees.
Click to expand...

I would imagine this is why she's suing, more important in my view.... the idea that they would attempt to have her legally bound by their choice, turning her into child protective services which is a "guilty until proven innocent" organization. Her entire family would be in jeopardy. They have no right to do that, but they can refuse her service.

From the first paragraph of the OP quote

A letter from Bayfront's chief financial officer said if she attempted a "trial of labor," the facility would report her to the state's Department of Children and Family Services, seek a court order to perform the surgery, and do the procedure "with or without (her) consent" if she stepped foot in the hospital.
Click to expand...
 
American said:
What happen to a woman's right to choose? Where are all her advocates?
Click to expand...
No one said she should not be able to choose how she wanted it done. Some have stated it is also up to the hospital what procedures they perform, and can choose to refuse to perform what would be considered a risky procedure that is adviced against by the professional groups for that area of medicine. It is best to read the thread before saying something painfully silly and inaccurate...
 
MaggieD said:
It's not clear because that's not what they said. What they SAID was that THEIR hospital wouldn't permit her to give natural childbirth; and if she was IN their hospital and refused a C-Section, they would report her.

This is a ridiculous story. Don't even know why it made the news.

She wants to try natural childbirth. It's the hospital's prerogative to find that risky in her circumstances and refuse her request. It shouldn't make the news . . . she should just find a hospital who will accommodate her -- if she can.
Click to expand...

It's the "reporting" threat aspect that would cause me to sue them. First of all, VBAC is dangerous to the mother, not the child, so calling Child Protective Services is totally stupid, but furthermore, calling the government to interfere in a medical decision that might only hurt the one making the decision.... well hell we should all be turned into whomever handles that since all surgeries have a risk of death or worse.
 
Summerwind said:
It's the "reporting" threat aspect that would cause me to sue them. First of all, VBAC is dangerous to the mother, not the child, so calling Child Protective Services is totally stupid, but furthermore, calling the government to interfere in a medical decision that might only hurt the one making the decision.... well hell we should all be turned into whomever handles that since all surgeries have a risk of death or worse.
Click to expand...

Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC)-Risks of VBAC and Cesarean Deliveries

umm no it is very risky to both mother and child and can cause death in both if there is a complication.
 
Summerwind said:
My first was a bit of a frustration in that it was a catholic hospital, pretty much all that is around, and they took the baby and refused to bring it back, apparently a minor issue with the cord having been briefly around the neck. I stood up on the bed, blood still dripping, and demanded that my husband follow that baby and don't let it out of your sight. He did, thank goodness.

After that, and remember I'd been in and out of surgeries much of my young life for a heart defect, I determined that I was both the OWNER OF MY BODY, and the EMPLOYER OF THE DOCTORS AND HOSPITAL STAFF INVOLVED IN ANY PROCEDURE, and never let a either usurp my choices again. Second baby was handled much better as my attitude didn't allow for the usual shennanigans, and my hysterectomy a few years after that was a pleasure.

Never again will a doc or hospital overrule my decisions. They can convince me of their perspective, but that's the end of their power.
Click to expand...

Not to get TMI here, but from what she's told me, she was basically abused from the minute she got in the door.

My mother's apparently built in such a way as to have fairly easy labor and deliveries. Out of five different deliveries, none have taken longer than 6 or 7 hours in total.

However, as I was her first, she didn't really know that yet.

She kept telling the nurses on call that she felt like something was going on, and that they should check her dilation. The nurses simply wouldn't believe her.

When she finally pestered one of them enough to check her (which they did in a very rough and unprofessional manner, according to my mother), they realized that I was about to come right then, and they had to rush her into delivery.

The doctor stormed in in an irritable huff afterwards, and went straight for an episiotomy without even asking her first (keep in mind that I was a 7 lb baby with a small head, so it's doubtful that this was in any way necessary). He then told her to bear down and push as hard as possible until I came out.

Afterwards, he stitched her up without making sure she was properly numb, and told her to "shut up" and "do her breathing" when she complained. She also lost so much blood from the cut that she almost went into shock, and suffered from severe anemia for weeks post-partum.

It didn't stop there either, apparently. The day after the delivery, they forced her to attend parenting classes in a wheel chair in spite of the fact that she was so weak and hopped up on pain killing drugs as to not even be able to hold her head up with her own energy.

At that point, she'd basically had enough, so she told my father to take her home in defiance of the hospital's orders.
 
Last edited:
Summerwind said:
I would imagine this is why she's suing, more important in my view.... the idea that they would attempt to have her legally bound by their choice, turning her into child protective services which is a "guilty until proven innocent" organization. Her entire family would be in jeopardy. They have no right to do that, but they can refuse her service.

From the first paragraph of the OP quote
Click to expand...

That doesn't make a lick of sense. She was only legally bound by their choice (actually medical determination) at their hospital. She has always been free to go somewhere else or even have at home delivery. A choice she eventually opted for as she did just what she wanted at another clinic.
 
Summerwind said:
It's the "reporting" threat aspect that would cause me to sue them. First of all, VBAC is dangerous to the mother, not the child, so calling Child Protective Services is totally stupid, but furthermore, calling the government to interfere in a medical decision that might only hurt the one making the decision.... well hell we should all be turned into whomever handles that since all surgeries have a risk of death or worse.
Click to expand...

If she were admitted to their hospital, and she refused a C-Section, what should they do with her? Throw her into the street? Discharge her? They can't do those things. So they'd report her to authorities. Whether or not they're the right ones, I don't know.

Refusal to deliver in the safest way possible for the child would, in my opinion, be a child protective services issue.

And just why, pray tell, would any of this be grounds to SUE???

Go to another hospital, for God's sake.
 
Summerwind said:
It's the "reporting" threat aspect that would cause me to sue them. First of all, VBAC is dangerous to the mother, not the child, so calling Child Protective Services is totally stupid, but furthermore, calling the government to interfere in a medical decision that might only hurt the one making the decision.... well hell we should all be turned into whomever handles that since all surgeries have a risk of death or worse.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, again, the threat was only is she went that way at their hospital. And let me remind folks, she had several months to make this decision.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Not to get TMI here, but from what she's told me, she was basically abused from the minute they got in the door.

She's apparently built in such a way as to have fairly easy labor and deliveries. Out of five different deliveries, none have taken longer than 6 or 7 hours in total.

However, as I was her first, she didn't really know that yet.

She kept telling the nurses on call that she felt like something was going on, and that they should check her dilation. The nurses simply wouldn't believe her.

When she finally pestered one of them enough to check her (which they did in a very rough and unprofessional manner, according to my mother), they realized that I was about to come right then, and they had to rush her into delivery.

The doctor stormed in in an irritable huff afterwards, and went straight for an episiotomy without even asking her first (keep in mind that I was a 7 lb baby with a small head, so it's doubtful that this was in any way necessary). He then told her to bear down and push as hard as possible until I came out.

Afterwards, he stitched her up without making sure she was properly numb, and told her to "shut up" and "do her breathing" when she complained. She also lost so much blood from the cut that she almost went into shock, and suffered from severe anemia for weeks post-partum.

It didn't stop there either, apparently. The day after the delivery, they forced her to attend parenting classes in a wheel chair in spite of the fact that she was so weak and hopped up on pain killing drugs as to not even be able to hold her head up with her own energy.

At that point, she'd basically had enough, so she told my father to take her home in defiance of the hospital's orders.
Click to expand...
Oh no doubt. I always (as an adult) have left the hospital before doctor's okay. They seem to really like to keep you there as long as possible. Hospital personnel are often abusive and think they own you while you're there. I do not accept that and even have forced them to let me smoke in my room (a private) room, and have guests after hours. They hated me, I'm sure.

Now that I'm un-plumbed, I've not seen a doc since the plumbing was removed, and don't intend to. From here on out I'll live and die by whatever happens to me without medical treatments. I mean if I break a leg, okay, I'll get it casted, but no more surgeries, none. I've had it with the whole business.
 
clownboy said:
Nonsense, again, the threat was only is she went that way at their hospital. And let me remind folks, she had several months to make this decision.
Click to expand...

They put on paper a threat of legal action that was #1 inappropriate because the baby wouldn't have been in any danger with such a decision, and #2 for putting their fear of malpractice ahead of accepted and usual birthing practice.
 
MaggieD said:
If she were admitted to their hospital, and she refused a C-Section, what should they do with her? Throw her into the street? Discharge her? They can't do those things. So they'd report her to authorities. Whether or not they're the right ones, I don't know.

Refusal to deliver in the safest way possible for the child would, in my opinion, be a child protective services issue.

And just why, pray tell, would any of this be grounds to SUE???

Go to another hospital, for God's sake.
Click to expand...

As pointed out numerous times, the only person likely to be hurt (although the CDC figures show that assumption to be untrue) is the woman and her birthing organs, not the child.

I think a hospital threatening inappropriate legal action against a person, whether it occurs or not, is a worthy of a lawsuit.
 
Summerwind said:
As pointed out numerous times, the only person likely to be hurt (although the CDC figures show that assumption to be untrue) is the woman and her birthing organs, not the child.

I think a hospital threatening inappropriate legal action against a person, whether it occurs or not, is a worthy of a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Reporting someone to child protective services is not legal action. And the report, in this case, would not be inappropriate.
 
MaggieD said:
Reporting someone to child protective services is not legal action. And the report, in this case, would not be inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been on the receiving end of a report to child protective services? I know a person who was, and you clearly don't have a clue as to how that goes. First things first, they come and take your children, then they decide if they should give them back.
 
Summerwind said:
Oh no doubt. I always (as an adult) have left the hospital before doctor's okay. They seem to really like to keep you there as long as possible. Hospital personnel are often abusive and think they own you while you're there. I do not accept that and even have forced them to let me smoke in my room (a private) room, and have guests after hours. They hated me, I'm sure.

Now that I'm un-plumbed, I've not seen a doc since the plumbing was removed, and don't intend to. From here on out I'll live and die by whatever happens to me without medical treatments. I mean if I break a leg, okay, I'll get it casted, but no more surgeries, none. I've had it with the whole business.
Click to expand...

And then they have the nerve to want to get all pissy about the number of women who are ditching hospitals entirely and opting for midwives or birthing centers instead.

Go figure. :shrug:
 
Gathomas88 said:
And then they have the nerve to want to get all pissy about the number of women who are ditching hospitals entirely and opting for midwives or birthing centers instead.

Go figure. :shrug:
Click to expand...

there are some midwives or birthing centers that will not do the same thing. the risk to mother and baby is to great for them to risk the liability.
 
ludin said:
there are some midwives or birthing centers that will not do the same thing. the risk to mother and baby is to great for them to risk the liability.
Click to expand...

Not do what? Surgical interventions?

Well... Yea. That's kind of the whole point of going to those kinds of care providers for a lot of people.
 
Summerwind said:
As pointed out numerous times, the only person likely to be hurt (although the CDC figures show that assumption to be untrue) is the woman and her birthing organs, not the child. I think a hospital threatening inappropriate legal action against a person, whether it occurs or not, is a worthy of a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
There is potential risk to the child. Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Section
A C-Section leaves a scar on the uterus. This is a weak area and can tear during labour. This is called a uterine rupture. If this occurs you would require an emergency C-section. You could need a blood transfusion or a hysterectomy and the baby could be harmed.
Click to expand...
Uterine Rupture: What Family Physicians Need to Know - American Family Physician
Neonatal outcome after uterine rupture depends largely on the speed with which surgical rescue is carried out. Much of the published literature comes from large medical centers, where in-house physicians and support facilities are available for emergency surgery at any time.1,17 Even in such centers, newborn morbidity and mortality can be substantial. One large study's neonatal mortality rate was 2.6 percent, which rose to 6 percent when cases of rupture occurring before the mother reached a hospital were included
Click to expand...
 
ludin said:
there are some midwives or birthing centers that will not do the same thing. the risk to mother and baby is to great for them to risk the liability.
Click to expand...

Nevermind, apparently I didn't read it on the thread, now I have to go find out where I just read the information I attempted to refer to.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Not do what? Surgical interventions?

Well... Yea. That's kind of the whole point of going to those kinds of care providers for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

no they will not do vbac either or i should say many of them won't. the risks are just to great and they are not equiped to handle emergancy situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom