Skip to main content

Have surgery or we’ll try to have your children taken from you.

That’s what Bayfont Health, a hospital in Port Charlotte, Florida, has effectively told Jennifer Goodall.

The native of Coral Gables and mother of three is now 41 weeks into her fourth pregnancy. Her other children were delivered by cesarean section as a matter of medical necessity but no medial reason has been given to suggest she needs one in this case. After considering the facts and her options Goodall determined that she wanted to attempt a normal vaginal birth with this child, only moving to surgical delivery if complications during the birth called for it.

The hospital refused. On July 10 she received a letter from the chief financial officer of the hospital warning her that she would be reported to the Department of Children and Family services and that they would seek a court order to allow them to perform a c-section if she sought care in their hospital regardless of her refusal to consent.

Goodall filed a request for a restraining order to prevent the hospital from forcing a procedure on her, but Federal District Judge John Steele refused, citing the right of the doctor and the hospital to determine what procedures and in what manner they perform in their facilities.

Now Jennifer Goodall faces the choice of trying to find another hospital that might honor her wishes, having her baby at home despite the possible risks or capitulating to the strong arm tactics of Bayfront Health. She’s not unmindful of the possibility that a c-section might become necessary in the event of complications.

“I would definitely consent to surgery if there were any indication during labor that it is necessary,” Goodall added. “I am trying to make the decision that will be safest for both me and my baby, and give me the greatest chance at being able to heal quickly after my child is born so I can care for my newborn and my three other children.” (via http://rhrealitycheck.org/...)
This is not an isolated incident.

In 2011 Rinat Dray gave birth to her third son, Yosef. She has since filed a lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital for malpractice, contending that they pressured her into having a cesarean despite her wishes.

In 2009 a Leon County Circuit Court ordered Samantha Burton to remain in the hospital and submit to whatever treatments were determined by the doctors.

In 2004 a Utah hospital sought a court order to allow them to perform a c-section on Amber Marlowe who was carrying a large child and wanted to attempt vaginal birth. The court determine the hospital could perform the procedure against the wishes of the mother if the woman checked back into their hospital – she had checked out against medical advice because of the attempts to force a surgery on her that she did not want.

Also in 2004 a Utah woman was charged with the murder of one of her twins after the child was stillborn. The prosecution contended that the mother’s delay of a cesarean section was criminal.

In 1999 a woman in Tallahassee, Florida was forced by a district court to have a cesarean section after a doctor discovered she had previously had a child by c-section. The court held that the interests of the woman were outweighed by the State’s interest in protecting the life of the unborn child. Further they determined that Roe v. Wade did not apply in the case, stating that carrying a child was a greater intrusion on a woman’s rights than being forced into a surgical procedure.

These kinds of actions serve to reduce women to little more than breeding stock. They are a clear and present danger to the right of every woman to autonomy. No matter who you are, you are supposed to have the right to make your own medical decisions. The actions of the courts and these hospitals shows a pattern of contempt for women, for their ability to make their own decisions and for their right to personal integrity.

Originally posted to Miang on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:09 PM PDT.

Also republished by Feminism, Pro-Feminism, Womanism: Feminist Issues, Ideas, & Activism and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  As someone who had two natural deliveries (38+ / 0-)

    after a C-section, I am dismayed that the government can impose it's ideology over medical issues that should be between a woman and her doctor.  Every situation is different and we do not need politicians practicing medicine in lieu of doctors.

    “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

    by ahumbleopinion on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:16:46 PM PDT

    •  It's just amazing to me (31+ / 0-)

      that the this kind of pressure isn't clearly understood to be completely unacceptable.

      It's the unfortunate outreach of trying to give the unborn equal or superior rights to living women.

      The nation is burning but we won't look up as long as the fiddle plays.

      by Miang on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:18:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Government? Diary Says it Was Hospital (7+ / 0-)

      threatened court order.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:57:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what do you do (4+ / 0-)

      When a woman and her doctor have a strong disagreement?  Should doctors be required to perform procedures they consider unsafe?

      •  Overseeing a vaginal birth (35+ / 0-)

        isn't a procedure. That's the first thing. Secondly if the doctor had only said he felt he couldn't do it for safety reasons I'd have less to say. The examples I cited went far beyond this, however. They threatened to call social services. A couple of my examples led to forced cesareans. There's a difference between disagreement and coercive tactics.

        Women have the right to the same degree of self-determination as any other patient. People refuse medical treatments of all kinds, all over the country all the time. We don't even force parents to vaccinate their children, but we're willing to force women to have c-sections?

        The nation is burning but we won't look up as long as the fiddle plays.

        by Miang on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:01:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They also said that if she found a new doctor (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gustynpip, FarWestGirl, Jojos Mojo

          that would do what she wanted they'd forward her medical records so that there was no interruption in care.

          She tried and couldn't find a doctor that would honor her request.

          http://docs.justia.com/...

          •  I'm not able to tell from this document (28+ / 0-)

            if she was unable to find another doctor at that hospital or in general. I have to conclude it was just at that hospital since ultimately she went to another hospital where she did attempt vaginal delivery.

            http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/

            Saying if she found a new doctor they'd forward her records is all well and good, but I'd like the context. They also said, for example, they'd include the letter the sent her threatening her with a DCFS report.

            Why should a woman be threatened with interference in her life by the Department of Child and Family Services for making her own medical decisions? She wasn't even saying she would ultimately refuse a c-section - only that she wanted to attempt normal delivery first. She said from the beginning that she was perfectly willing to have a c-section IF it became necessary at the time of the birth or due to any arising complication.

            The nation is burning but we won't look up as long as the fiddle plays.

            by Miang on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:16:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well, finding a doctor willing to go up against (5+ / 0-)

            the DCFS is going to be pretty difficult, don't you think?

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:13:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's what DCFS is counting on. (11+ / 0-)

              I thought this got solved a generation ago by The Silent Knife. Every generation we go 'round this stuff again, whether it's abortion, birth control, or control of birth.

              We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

              by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:46:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  DCFS isn't involved in this at all, so this (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jojos Mojo, Susan G in MN

                is turning into a ridiculous discussion.  A threat was made to report to DCFS.  There's absolutely nothing to indicate what DCFS response would have been had that happened (which it did not).  So this lame suggestion that this is some kind of conspiracy with DCFS to force women to have cesareans when they don't need to is getting down to being pure silliness.

                •  That is no idle threat. (2+ / 0-)

                  Having your children removed by Child Services guarantees that you will most likely not see them for at least 30 days. 30 days of them staying with god knows who, 30 days of not saying goodnight, of not seeing their milestones, 30 days of milestones missed.

                  And the younger her children are, the more at risk they are for abuse in the system as well.

                  Thats just fucked up. If someone threatened me with that kind of act, it would make the blood run away from my face and I would have to sit down to catch my breath.

                  To have this threat dangled over you because you refuse a medical procedure is just wrong. C-sections are major organ surgery and each subsequent surgery carries it's own risks as well. Just as potentially deadly as VBAC.

                  "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                  by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:20:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I never said it wasn't a serious threat. But (0+ / 0-)

                    the comment I responded to spoke as though DCFS actually got involved and took action against the mother.  It didn't.  And that was my point.

                    •  But that is a serious loaded weapon there (4+ / 0-)

                      DFCS could be called at any time, for any reason. And the targeted family will not know until DFCS shows up. And then it's too late, I mean who can afford a live in retainer this side of a gated community?

                      Not to mention, this plays to the history of similar cases where child protective services WERE called on women who refused C-sections and other procedures ordered by doctors.

                      I mean it's common knowledge that the best way to get to a woman is through her kids. You threaten them with enough skill and sincerity and you can get a mom to do just about damn near anything. We have a lovely domestic violence problem in this country that illustrates that unfortunate fact daily.

                      The problem with attempting to threaten women with C-sections vs child removal was so bad that organizations were created to deal with this topic, one such being ICAN.
                      The International C-Section Awareness Network.

                      Here is a story from 2010:

                      The National Association for Pregnant Women (NAPW) recently acknowledged a victory in which they played a part related to a woman who had given birth three years ago and had her newborn swiftly whisked away by a child protective authority claiming child endangerment for refusing to “pre-authorize” a cesarean section. 2010
                      This too has been a common threat in other stories--threatening to remove not only children already here, but the newborn as soon as it hits air. Shades of Silent Knife (a great book btw) Also check out Open Season, and For Her Own Good as well.

                      Here is one from 2009 in the NYT:

                      The big deal is to be supportive of women and their personal autonomy over their bodies.

                      Our C-section rate in this country is dreadfully high with women reporting in those books mentioned, feeling coerced, threatened, scared, or tricked into having procedures they don't want and often don't need.

                      If doctors have a problem with women saying no and not trusting them, then perhaps they need to remove the log from their own eye first. The distrust of doctors in the field of gynecology and obstetrics is self inflicted. That leaves the onus on doctors to learn to be better communicators and be more respectful or expect to have a lot of difficult, distrustful patients who will run to midwives and homebirth whenever possible.

                      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                      by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 09:47:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (2+ / 0-)

          I think every state has laws requiring children to be vaccinated, at least if they attend public schools.

          You do not have the right to make the medical community cooperate with whatever you want to do to your body.  For example, you can't force a plastic surgeon to do anything that he says is unwise.

          I consider the examples you cite to be consistent with Roe.  If you read the text of the decision, it basically says that the state can't interfere with medical assessment of the doctor.  It's not written as a ruling that lets women do whatever they want.

          •  So at what point exactly (17+ / 0-)

            does it become acceptable for a doctor to use coercive tactics to get their way?

            What you're saying is that a woman who is pregnant not only should comply with what her doctor suggests but can be forced to, against her will. I have to wonder where you draw the line. What kinds of medical treatments should we be able to refuse, and why?

            The nation is burning but we won't look up as long as the fiddle plays.

            by Miang on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:39:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't believe in drawing bright lines (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gustynpip, Jojos Mojo, lcbo

              But I'd tend to accept a doctor's reluctance to perform a procedure if there a significant agreement from the medical community.  Not necessarily a majority, but enough to characterize it as mainstream dissent and not a kooky opinion held by just a few.  I wouldn't put an exact number on what percentage constitutes mainstream dissent.

            •  A woman can and should change doctors (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              UberFubarius

              whenever she wishes.  It's acceptable for a doctor to say "I don't wish to be a party to something I believe creates an unreasonable risk for a baby" whenever he or she chooses.

              Seems to me you're wanting to impose on the doctor's choices rather than wanting to increase the woman's options.

              No doctor is obligated to perform abortions, yet a particular doctor choosing not to is not an imposition on womens' right to choose.  Nor is a doctor deciding that he or she doesn't want to participate in a particular type of birth he or she believes is risky an imposition on the right of the woman to use that form.

              The only time it becomes an imposition is when the woman is given no other choice and held in a hospital against her will to force her to use a particular method.  That's been done.  Since I don't know any details of when or why, I'm not going to pass judgement on whether it was a good thing or a bad thing.  

          •  You mean like the "good old days"? (18+ / 0-)

            When a husband could put his wife in a mental hospital with a doctor's connivance based on the fact that she disagreed with her lord and master?

            That was as recently as the 1960s. Some doctors seem to reside there. Still.

            Help us to save free conscience from the paw Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw. ~John Donne

            by ohiolibrarian on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:50:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  but you have it backwards (15+ / 0-)

            "medical community do whatever you want to your body"

            Normal birth you arent' doing anything to your body, that is the default mode. The "doing to your body" is a C section, major surgery where they cut open abdominal cavity and an organ. It takes weeks of recovery.

          •  even public schools in some places have opt-outs (5+ / 0-)

            whether or not people agree with that, it is the case in places.

            It is also the case that the rate for c-sections that are medically necessary fluctuates just above 5% of births, maybe a little more if we are conservative, but the rate that they are done rises up to near 30% of births and both doctors and women start to assume that c-section is a safe alternative. It is not. It is an emergency procedure, and it has been shown long ago that with today's surgical techniques it once-a-c-sec/always-a-c-sec does NOT have to happen. Then a new generation figures it out, shouts about it, and it goes down again...Been around this since the seventies.

            Plus Roe v. Wade does allow you to do what you want, in private, between you and your doctor, even if it means kill that growing thing instead of "rescue" it through surgery. The fourth amendment means they can't stop you, they're not even supposed to know about it.

            We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

            by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:56:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I had medical personnel who wanted to (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Flying Goat, white blitz, benamery21

            schedule me for a c-section because I was going to turn 35 just before the birth of my second child.

            I had no other health problems, age--was the "root" of their "concern"

            Here is the Economic Issue with Unnecessary C-Sections

            As major surgeries, C-sections also use more medical resources and pose a higher risk of complication to both women and infants, resulting in more care overall.

            Another article states:

            Nationally, about one in three births are by C-section – the most common surgery in U.S. hospitals today. This represents an all-time high, increasing by more than 50 percent since the 1990s. In 2008, Intermountain estimates that 473,592 C-sections in the U.S. were potentially unnecessary. These births result in higher (national) average maternal charges – $16,671.89 compared to $9,428.08 for a vaginal birth – and increased medical complications for the mother and baby. (Intermountain’s average charges were $9,101.35 for a C-section and $4,964.30 for a vaginal birth.) Californiawatch.org
            The only other surgery that compares with C-sections in terms of physical trauma, and lack of necessity is the hysterectomy. Wow, isn't it convenient that both are surgeries specific to women.

            Hospitals accused of performing unnecessary C-sections NBC News

            which took me to Consumer Reports: What Hospitals Dont Want you to Know About C-sections.

            it’s usually much easier to find a hospital with a high C-section rate than a low one. Overall, 66 percent of the hospitals in our Ratings earned our lowest or second-lowest score, while only 12 percent got either of our top two marks.
            Scroll down To A Mother's Story--A woman induced 8 days before she is due, is being set up for failure. Midwives will tell you, that babies come when they are ready. It's a process, and not like decanting an Axoltl Tank as if we were trapped in some Dune Novel. Just Sickening.
            Life-threatening complications are rare whether babies are born vaginally or by C-section. But compared with women giving birth vaginally, healthy, low-risk women undergoing their first C-section were three times more likely to suffer serious complications—such as severe bleeding, blood clots, heart attack, kidney failure, and major infections—according to a 14-year analysis of more than 2 million women in Canada published in 2007 and cited by the new ACOG/SMFM guidelines.
            But ya know, we are just baby making machines. Push a button, make an incision and a baby pops out like magic!

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:31:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  VBAC (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GreenMother

              I can't understand why any woman would choose a repeat c-section unless the babies were born within2 years or so of each other. It took me 4 Months to recover from my c-sec in 1987. When I had my daughter in 1996, I was an avid line dancer. I danced Wednesday, delivered vaginally on Friday, and was back dancing the next Wednesday. And I was considered high-risk pregnancy due to age (34) and previous c-sec. My youngest was also considered high-risk in 1999 due to age (37) and polyhydramnious (excess amniotic fluid). Neither of my doctors had any problem w/me attempting natural birth.

          •  Coercive tactics (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FishOutofWater

            As an OB with a low cesarean rate I have been on the other side when women wanted me to do a primary cesarean without a medical indication, as a personal choice. I strongly believe that I have the right and responsibility to refer these women to another OB.

            Many smaller hospitals have limitations on their ability to handle a catastrophic event like a ruptured uterus, something that is rare but real possibility after multiple prior incisions on the uterus. Personally I believe that because of the risk of travel, possibly in labor, to a large tertiary care center women should be given the option of making the choice to attempt vaginal delivery after a single cesarean at smaller hospitals when there is no larger hospital nearby. However, I think it might be difficult to get a truly informed consent without discussing many details that most pregnant women really do not want to hear. Risks are rare but potentially life-threatening. And I would do everything in my power to get a woman with three prior cesareans to do her VBAC attempt with someone other than me. Most OBs would agree.

            I have seen a situation where a woman chose to have a hospital birth rather than a home birth because of the additional risk of having twins. Then she chose to labor at home until she was almost ready to deliver and it was too late to get an anesthesiologist to the hospital to stand by and almost too late for the OB to make it. Fortunately when there was a cord prolapse with the second twin we were able to manage it, but people often do not realize how their choices handicap medical personnel trying to offer safe services.

            ACOG has stood with OBs that we do not threaten our patients, we try to communicate and work out compromises when we can. It is wrong to use DCFS as a threat when it is their job to HELP families and protect children. Sending women to jail for the choices they make about their own bodies is wrong.

      •  It might be financial, not philosophical.. (8+ / 0-)

        OB/GYN has one of the highest rates of malpractice claims for non-surgical specialties.  Hospitals can be very risk-averse.

        If the medical opinion is that a vaginal birth puts the baby and/or the mother at too high a risk, I don't believe that the hospital should be forced to allow it.

        That said, there may be other issues in play.  The hospital administrators may be deliberately trying to dump this patient due to insurance status or other reasons.

        But if multiple doctors at different hospitals are refusing to support a vaginal birth, I'm more inclined to believe there is a medical reason than to buy into some sort of medical collusion.

        •  So I guess you missed the part about them (2+ / 0-)

          getting DCFS involved?

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:15:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, but it's not inconsistent. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gustynpip, Jojos Mojo

            I said in my original comment that the motives could be medical or financial (or maybe both).

            There may be a valid medical argument that insisting on a vaginal birth significantly increases the chances of infant mortality.  I don't know if that justifies a threat to involve DCFS.  That's a difficult ethical question.

            It could also be that the hospital administration are assholes.  I don't know.

            Does the author have direct knowledge of this case?  We've seen time and again stories that seem compelling and outrageous, yet turn out to be much less so when ALL the facts are discovered.

            My original point was that if having a vaginal birth after mutiple C-sections increases the odds of complications, thereby raising the already elevated possibility of a malpractice suit, that there might be an alternative explanation for the examples listed.  Still unpleasant, but a lost less evil.

            •  After three previous c-sections... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RN that thinks, Rita5018

              ...attempting to VBAC is almost universally a baaaaaaad idea. The likelihood of the mom's uterus rupturing and her bleeding out during labor are significantly higher.

              This move by the hospital administration was done entirely to mitigate their legal and financial risks. When a mom dies or a baby is injured during labor and delivery, lawsuits are typically forthcoming. Children have 21 years to file suit. This helps the hospital admin cover their ass when they're inevitably sued over an injury or death by the patient or her surviving family.

              Also, docs aren't required to ignore their training, education, and judgment because a patient wants a different experience. Practicing medicine isn't about everything going as planned. It's unpredictable, just like the patients it's practiced on. Frequently, it boils down to having to take a less desirable course of action to achieve acceptable outcomes because the most desired course of action is no longer an option.

              I guarantee that most docs delivering babies would love nothing more than to have uncomplicated, healthy, textbook deliveries and avoid c-sections. That's just not feasible in all cases.

              "Reality divorced the wingnuts after the wingnuts were discovered to be fucking goofy." - DWG

              by Jojos Mojo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:43:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That was my initial reaction. (4+ / 0-)

                I certainly understand the outrage at the the thought that women are coerced into having caesareans - but the first example in the diary troubles me for that reasons you suggest.

                I'm not a doctor but it is my understanding that after three caesareans a vaginal birth would not be at all advisable - and trying for one might lead to unnecessary complications. It seems to me that the doctor and hospital were within their rights to refuse.

                The business of calling DCFS seems over the top - and that troubles me too. I don't know if that was overreach on the part of the hospital or if there's more to this story.

                The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

                by lcbo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 02:57:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The threat of calling of DCFS is troubling... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RN that thinks

                  ...but we don't have the entire story. We have only one side. The patient can say whatever they want to the media while medical providers are prohibited from commenting due to HIPAA. If everything unfolded precisely as outlined by the patient, then I foresee some ethics complaints being filed with the state medical board. However, I'm skeptical that there wasn't a LOT more to the scenario than what the patient has shared thus far.

                  "Reality divorced the wingnuts after the wingnuts were discovered to be fucking goofy." - DWG

                  by Jojos Mojo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:50:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Docs avoiding c-sections? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FishOutofWater

                Well, I can tell you that there are OBs out there who would rather do every delivery by scheduled cesarean if they were given that choice. Fortunately most of us would not.

        •  I don't believe it was at different (13+ / 0-)

          hospitals, since ultimately Jennifer Goodall was able to go to a different hospital and attempt VBAC there.

          It seems to me that there was a financial motive, and my thoughts on straight refusal are more mixed. It's the coercive element here that I find most troubling.

          The nation is burning but we won't look up as long as the fiddle plays.

          by Miang on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:16:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There's a reason for that. (0+ / 0-)

          Apparently being an OBGYN doesn't automatically make a doctor Woman Friendly.

          Who knew?

          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:32:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Call Social Services?! (15+ / 0-)

        If she didn't submit to C section they'd decide she's "abusing" the "child"?

        As said elsewhere, birth is a normal process, the default one. Doing a procedure (note C section tho so common is major surgery they cut into a body cavity and then into an organ) is the abnormal thing. The default mode is to allow birth to proceed and intervene only if needed. Unless there is something extraordinary. Which I admit might be left out.

        But still, social services?

        I strongly feel pull to assume you are male. Again, we are talking about forcing someone to have major surgery against their will. Their are complications from major surgery. Even, occasionally, people die from it. Higher rate of death or complication than normal birth I bet.

        How can you force surgery on ANYONE?! If she finds no hospital she will be forced.

        Better they make her sign a legal document absolving the of responsibility if something goes wrong.

        Note this is hospital (probably it's legal dept) not doctor who has a problem.

        I doubt we'd be here if a doctor had medical reasons and  refused...ie only the doctor, and she could not find a doctor to do it.

        •  people forget that c-sec is 2nd choice for baby (16+ / 0-)

          also. There is growing evidence that the babe does not get some of the flora it needs if it doesn't go down the birth canal. Also that it's lungs need the squeezing, etc. So yes, it's a wonderful emergency procedure. But it ought not to be mandatory. Even the Mom in this story is being reasonable, agreeing that it may become necessary and that she would submit. Why aren't the doctors? (planned C-sections are easier to schedule the OR for. waiting for the birth to start then needing a room in a hurry can be a pain...)

          We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

          by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:04:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes I've heard that. Like some birds too (3+ / 0-)

            If you break them out of the shell when they start to try to come out themselves they fare poorly. Apparently at least for some the struggle and work to get out of the shell is part of the process that makes them ready to be out.

            Only thing I think of is that there's info we don't know. Someone mentioned every local doc refused her. There may be a medical reason we aren't hearing in the story. This happens a lot I think.

            •  the story at the top said that she tried natural (18+ / 0-)

              then had the c-section at another hospital. It also said there was "No medical reason" and what they used to 'reason' with her was from the finance department...
              Any other doctor at that first hospital would also have had to fight the system for her since the system came down so hard.
                  There are lots of other possible reasons (scheduling the OR being a prime one although I am not saying that was this situation, only that it can work that way). And not just scheduling them, but scheduling them early (before 40 weeks- speaking of not being ready to leave the shell and getting 'helped' out early) so as not to let the birth process begin.
                 And even simple 'interventions' can be huge. I was in labor overnight. Showed up at 3 am and only regular progression was happening. I was 19 hours away from actually delivering, and I was already hungry because (because I was pregnant lol)  I hadn't eaten much since dinner the night before. The nurses would not let me eat anything at all (not even a candy bar) "because you might have to have surgery and we want you to have an empty stomach, so you'll have to wait and ask the doctor." Even though everything was normal for me even down to showing up on my predicted due date.
                 Well, the doctor came in, looked me over, told me I had a long time to go and recommended that the family all go out to this great breakfast restaurant he knew of...I ate two whole breakfasts and everything everyone had left over...that was 9 am. I did not eat again until after 10:10 pm I had the baby the regular way. But without those solid meals behind me I was already so shaky there was no way I was going to get through it without surgical help...so sometimes their very 'precautions' are self -defeating. So glad at least the doctor understood. Those damn nurses weren't budging though. I love nurses and they were doing their job, which sometimes requires saying no to food and drink people "want"- but 'in case you might possibly need a surgery that is not even on the event horizon until we put it there by interfereing' is just not right.

              We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

              by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:06:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  such a relief to find a doctor like that (12+ / 0-)

                With her first child, my friend got pitosin because some doc popped in and said they could 'speed things along". The harder contractions made her abandon her natural birth plan and she took the epidural they offered. Then, she was immobile of course and could not squat and we know that the birth canal is much smaller flat on your back. Many people can't think of consequences far down the line when they are in severe pain and haven't experienced that before.

                So after laboring a long time, they diagnosed her with that thing that basically means the baby's head is too big to come out...he kept coming down and going back in so they C-sectioned her.

                It's obvious to her  on review of her experience that the casual offer of speeding things up to a first time mother, the pit, lead to her C section. Because we can do the math and his head would have fit through if she could have squatted without the epidural, given for pain because of worse contractions because of the pit given unnecessarily.

                So they caused her to have major surgery and caused her son to not have the health-inducing benefit of being born rather than via C-section.

                This is what happens. I was astounded and horrified and I'm not even a mother.

                •  "the casual offer of speeding things up"...gah (13+ / 0-)

                  seen so many people go through the exact scenario you described.

                  On the other end of the spectrum, I remember reading Ina May Gaskin's Spiritual Midwifery, in which she describes labor as not "pain" as much as "intensity requiring your full attention."
                      Personally I discovered on my own a style of breathing that I have now found is used both in yoga and Lamaze. I was breathing in and out focused on the second hand of the clock...for ten hours. Friends and family musta been bored silly, but I was using all my attention elsewhere. Can't rush that. When my body was ready she came out in ten minutes and 4 pushes.
                      One of the statistics somewhere here in this thread said that births with a doula assisting the woman were 40% less likely to be sent for c-sections. Staying calm, hydrated, and in a posture that allows gravity to work while the pelvis stretches open goes a long way towards healthy birth. It's fairly simple if you can move about the room or hall and have someone listen to the baby every once in a while. I spent those ten hours perched on the edge of a rocking chair, then climbed onto a regular hospital bed to have her. The thing that scared me most of all was the thought of my slippery baby hitting the tile floor in the OR while I would be strapped with my legs in the air.
                       So what do we do? We strap the women into the lithotomy position, hook them to a machine that keeps women flat out on the bed and nervous. I lost a lot of faith in "machines" when I was in the ER for something but I had to go to the bathroom so bad that I couldn't wait so I unhooked my blood pressure monitor and went by myself. The thing screeched the whole time, but no one came running because they are completely conditioned to it being a false alarm. Happens all the time...

                  We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

                  by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:04:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There is no better feeling than knowing that (2+ / 0-)

                    your midwife or doula is there for you exclusively. She will support you, she will not coerce you or scare you or manipulate you.

                    She will tell you what needs to happen and then help you make it happen.

                    Doctors are like cops they want to CONTROL the situation at all costs. They forget they are not gods.

                    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                    by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:37:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  My first was back labor. Intense. (3+ / 0-)

                  So I already knew he was head down, but face up.  Not good for getting through the birth canal.

                  Anyway, we proceeded on the natural childbirth path, but the pain was so bad that I went into full body shakes.  The nurse-midwife suggested an epidural.  Thank god.  I was able to get a nice three-hour nap.  I was fully dilated when I woke up and ready to push.  They let me push for two hours, but he was stuck.  They brought the doctor in.  He took out the suction and forceps, turned the baby around.  Someone had to push on my stomach as I was just too exhausted to push.   My son, with a 15" circumference head, perfectly round even after all the pushing, was born.  I couldn't deliver the uterine lining, so they upped the epidural and did emergency surgery.  I lost a lot of blood and almost needed a transfusion.  I was weak for weeks.

                  In retrospect, a C-section would have been easier.  But no one even suggested it.  We just worked together to get the baby out, one way or another.

                  •  my friend with the undesired c section (0+ / 0-)

                    -her son's head was on the small side, enough so that it was remarked on and followed. My friend was told she had a normal size pelvic outlet. Doing the math, their dx of "cephelopelvic disproportion " or something like that ...that his head was too big to fit out...seems unlikely. Seems like if she could have squated and opened things up as much as 35% more iirc, she could have had him vaginally. The unnecessary pit lead to too strong contractions and pain led to epidural...which is a fine choice but in this case they caused her unnaturally to need it. Which meant she could not squat. She birthed her 3 subsequant kids squatting fine...and they didn't have small heads.

                    •  Maybe (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FishOutofWater

                      There are factors of position and contractility of the uterus that might mean a baby was more difficult to deliver than the small size would predict. That is why we were taught to talk about arrest of dilation or arrest of descent rather than cephalopelvic disproportion. Sometimes a baby that has a head that is positioned unfavorably might need a cesarean delivery even though a later and larger baby might deliver vaginally.

                      That said, it is a judgment call by the doctor and it might mean he/she is tired of waiting, has dinner plans, or is rushing things and would rather do a quick cesarean than wait.

              •  Just a bit about the nurses (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                white blitz, RN that thinks

                The MD is the final decision maker. The nurses could NOT let you eat until the MD had given the OK.

                If they had served you a meal and the MD had come in and decided that you might need  a CS within the next 6 hours those nurses would have been in a world of hurt.

                •  I say, (0+ / 0-)

                  any time you think you are man enough to get between me and my food.

                  Birthing is hard work, and the body needs nourishment--otherwise known as fuel.

                  "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                  by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:39:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  In the case of my son, who came out in two pushes, (2+ / 0-)

            his appetite was low because his tummy was still full of gas.  He hadn't been squeezed enough!  

            It's easily resolved, but the nurse told me she saw it all the time with C-section births!

      •  Change doctors. FWG RN n/t (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Penny GC, Jojos Mojo

        Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
        ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

        by FarWestGirl on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:44:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Easier said than done sometimes! (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          white blitz, not a lamb, suzq, FarWestGirl

          Depends on multiple factors, including your insurance and who will take you on and where you are in your pregnancy.

          Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

          by Jilly W on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:45:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Patient's insurance issues don't take... (0+ / 0-)

            ...precedence over practitioner's ability to practice medicine to the best of their knowledge and abilities.

            If the patient doesn't like the way a care provider practices medicine, they have the option to change providers. If they can't find one they like who accepts their insurance, their option is then to pay for the costs out-of-pocket for whichever doc and hospital they like. "My insurance only covers you, so you have to practice medicine the way I want you to practice it," is not a valid position.

            "Reality divorced the wingnuts after the wingnuts were discovered to be fucking goofy." - DWG

            by Jojos Mojo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:50:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Paying out of pocket (3+ / 0-)

              Is simply not an option for most people and is a seriously unrealistic suggestion. That you even make it shows that you a) have no concept of hospital costs whatsoever, and b) do not understand that few OBs will accept self-pay patients unless they can prove financial responsibility. Of course the patient could just present to a hospital and take whatever OB happens to be on call, or go to a hospital that, like the last one I worked at, uses OB hospitalists, but you never know what you'll get. Obstetrics is perhaps the one field where the patient's wishes and preferences are routinely ignored and overruled.

              Excuse me for asking, but are you male? Because you sound like you might be, or if you are female you haven't had children.

              Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

              by Jilly W on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:50:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If a patient wants to go outside... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FarWestGirl

                ...of which providers their insurance policy covers, their only options are to pay out-of-network rates or pay everything entirely out of pocket. I agree that it is cost prohibitive and not feasible for most patients. However, that doesn't mean that a patient has a right to put a provider's license or malpractice rates at risk because they want a different experience than what their medical history or current health status dictates.

                Many OB's (in my area) accept self-pay patients. They have different payment structures and require a healthy chunk of their fee paid upfront, which is what I'd expect.

                Most women who show up at a hospital in labor will see whichever doc is on-call, whether it's the call doc for their own doctor's group or a hospitalist. Some groups have their docs cover their own deliveries whether they're the on-call doc or not. Depends on the group's policies. Like all things in medicine, it varies by region, group, and facility.

                Not that it matters any, but I am a woman who has given birth to three children naturally. I've also utilized both midwives and doulas at one point. Although, I don't see how that matters in this scenario. My gender, health, and birth history aren't the issue here.

                "Reality divorced the wingnuts after the wingnuts were discovered to be fucking goofy." - DWG

                by Jojos Mojo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:35:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  She also might be so far along, that finding (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                white blitz, Jilly W, FarWestGirl

                even a Registered Nurse Midwife could be difficult. Generally professionals want to start at the beginning of a pregnancy and not the middle of the end, for all sorts of reasons.

                Coercive tactics at the end of a pregnancy is low down dirty pool. Because you are over a barrel.

                "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:41:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Should doctors be able to ignore a woman's human (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FloridaSNMOM, kat herder

        rights and participate in an act of rape by instrumentation?

        She has not consented and the doctor has not shown a reasonable cause for this to transpire as a matter of course.

        It's called VBAC which is Vaginal Birth After C-Section, and it's ultimately her insurance company or even the hospital or doctors insurer that is escalating this mess.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:16:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A friend of mine had her daughter (24+ / 0-)

      by c-section because she was breech, but her son was delivered vaginally with no problems.  This idea that once you have a c-section, all the rest of your deliveries have to be by c-section is medically unsound.  Although I'm sure the hospital and the doctors involved make more money because it's a major surgical procedure.

      •  In determining what is medically unsound (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jojos Mojo

        I tend to defer to what doctors say.  If she could find a doctor who would agree to her terms, then that's fine with me.  If she can't find one who thinks it is safe, then a non-doctor trying to go against medical experts seems to me to be a lot like a non-scientist trying to disagree with climatology experts about global warming.

        Are you a doctor?

        •  I can't speak for anon004 (16+ / 0-)

          but I'm not a doctor. However there is information out there provided by doctors. For example  -

          If you've delivered a baby by C-section, you might have a choice with your next pregnancy — schedule a repeat C-section or attempt vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).

          Years ago, a C-section ended any hope of future vaginal deliveries. But today, thanks largely to changes in surgical technique, VBAC is possible in many cases. In fact, an estimated 75 percent of women who try VBAC have a successful vaginal delivery.

          VBAC

          The nation is burning but we won't look up as long as the fiddle plays.

          by Miang on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:43:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Would your opinion change (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jojos Mojo

            If it turned out that this hospital does perform some VBAC, but that doctors involved were only declining to allow it for this specific patient for reasons that they cannot reveal due to privacy laws?

            I notice that Bayfront Health Port Charlotte has a webpage discussing VBAC as an option.

            •  My opinion about them (22+ / 0-)

              threatening her would not change, no. But I don't find that scenario credible in any case. She went to a different hospital, attempted VBAC and ultimately had a c-section when it was medically indicated. That doesn't suggest that her actions were anything other than what she said they were; a desire to attempt to birth her child normally as long as it remained safe.

              In my opinion coercion does not belong in the doctor/patient relationship.

              The nation is burning but we won't look up as long as the fiddle plays.

              by Miang on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:10:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If I were a doctor (2+ / 0-)

                And thought my patient was taking an unjustifiable risk, I would probably engage in what you consider coercion in an attempt to stop her.

                But I'm a big government nanny-state liberal....

                •  I used to work for a doctor who called up my (14+ / 0-)

                  husband on the phone and told him that I would die and hubby would be left alone with our newborn if I didn't take the Isoniazide he wanted me to for the tuberculosis he swore I had but I don't. I quit that job and that doctor's office, but I know personally 'cause I've lived it that a doctor may take it upon himself to go too far because he he believes something to be true, even when he's wrong. He actually asked young hubby w/newborn to make me take it, or risk raising baby alone. (26 TB-free years later, sans medicine, I'm still mad about it.)

                  We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

                  by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:09:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's ridiculous. Since when have (8+ / 0-)

                  doctors become omniscient?

                  Last PAP I had while hub was still in the Navy I was told I'd be dead in 6 months if I didn't let them do a total hysterectomy immediately. They were big into hysterectomies at that time, nearly half the wives of the sailors on hub's boat ended up without their plumbing, and statistically only 1 or 2 women in that group - at most - would actually have 'needed' one. Having grown up Navy (good ol' gub'ment medicine), I laughed derisively and walked out. I am still here more than 40 years later, thanks.

                  Hospitals make more money from abdominal surgeries than they make on women giving natural birth in their rooms, booked for a day or two. As opposed to 10 days or more for c-section. Every single child born of friends/family over the past 5 years was born 'emergency' c-section, and all of the mothers ended up with staph infections. This is aberrant medical practice, as humans do not have to be pulled from wombs through the abdomen in order to live in this world. That's a plain fact of nature.

                  There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

                  by Joieau on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:45:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We now know that only certain strains of HPV (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau

                    cause cancer.  There are more treatments for it than hysterectomies, too.

                  •  Wish I could rec this a thousand times. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau

                    You didn't get that memo either?

                    Doctors are gods that we are supposed to supplicate with our worship and money.

                    But you know, being a female with my microscopic brain inclines me to listen to anything with a penis as if it were a god, because I might forget how to wipe my ass or something (angry Righteous Snark)

                    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                    by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:46:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  By the way (0+ / 0-)

                      The statistics have changed. There are more women going into obstetrics these days than men. I am a woman OB with a low cesarean rate in my practice, two natural childbirths of my own, experience as a doula prior to medical school, much experience with successful VBAC patients, and I still would send a woman with three prior cesareans elsewhere to have her baby. Some things make no sense regardless of the sex of the doctor. I suspect the hospital she found chose not to force her to have a cesarean but rather kept trying to persuade her, and finally succeeded. But we do not know the whole story.

                      •  The fact that you make this statement oneline (0+ / 0-)

                        without seeing the patient in question doesn't win you brownie points in my book.

                        And it looked to me like she wanted to try, and keep her options open, and it was the doctor's absolutism in the matter AND THREATS that were causing the problem.

                        It's not as if she were trying to do this at home without assistance. But you know it's that desire to control at all costs that drive women away from hospitals and into other venues to give birth on their own terms.

                        I see the same thing with other Ob-GYN issues. Because communication has broken down to such a degree--in general between doctors and women, the trust has been eroded.

                        Words mean squat, assuming they were exchanged at all. And if you cannot convince her what you want to do is right, if you lack the skill to communicate the issue to another adult--without bringing in scare tactics or threats --which apparently her doctor lacked that skill, then why act surprised when someone's bullshit meter pegs?

                        It's not as if women, especially pregnant women, don't have to face a barrage of BS regarding their pregnancy, their birth options, their birth control options, etc., being launched from every direction. Some for profit, some for political gain, and some just out of a desire to control women, or perhaps just out of pure hatred for our gender. Because birthing options is part of Women's Human Rights Issues--a big one that often goes unacknowledged in the rush to make Feminism all about abortion.

                        Telling her "Because you had other C-sections" isn't an adequate explanation. And telling her that she HAS to without even looking at her, when she is already opting to do this in a hospital--why piss that opportunity away? She is already there. Why not make her comfortable, why not befriend her and help her understand what your concerns are? Why not consider her point of view as a human being who has been hacked up by others, who maybe weren't such grand physicians with high ethics, but in fact the nightmare some of us deal with--doctors who are in a hurry and impatient with the birthing process, and stall labor by trying to speed things up with drugs and interventions.

                        We don't know what she has already been through prior to this, other than C-sections, which apparently she didn't want, and doesn't seem convinced were absolutely necessary. For all we know, she is one of those women who have been traumatized by one of these hospital births, and that is not being adequately addressed with the proper concern, and compassion.  Sadly that is not unusual in that field. Not respecting that could cause someone like her to run and I don't blame her at all for that.

                        We are not machines for you to fix. We are human beings and what you do to us medically has ramifications beyond anatomy and physiology. When doctors hurt and scare people, that leaves deep scars as well, deeper than any scalpel. Ignoring her physical autonomy is only going to make her dig in and yell louder:

                        YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!

                        Until the doctor(s) listen to her, she can't hear you.

                        so how are you going to convince her? How are you going to treat her? Or will this be one of those things where you scare her and piss her off til she runs off and dies trying to give birth in what she feels is a safe space, and then you and others throw a party wearing Capt Obvious Hats?

                        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                        by GreenMother on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 05:50:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Bring it on asshole--that would be my reply (0+ / 0-)

                  OH My god I have to go breathe in a paper bag for a while so the veins in my head can go down.

                  I guess you want us to pat you on the back for being honest.

                  "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                  by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:44:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The threats to take her children are completely (28+ / 0-)

              unacceptable. There is absolutely no excuse for that threat in a letter from the FINANCIAL officer of the hospital. The medical director and chief of the service should be ashamed.

              Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

              by Catskill Julie on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:25:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Huge difference between the risks... (0+ / 0-)

            ...associated with ONE c-section and trying to VBAC versus three previous sections and trying to VBAC. That's a lot of scarring and a significantly higher likelihood of rupturing.

            "Reality divorced the wingnuts after the wingnuts were discovered to be fucking goofy." - DWG

            by Jojos Mojo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 11:53:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You mean if she could find a doctor who is (4+ / 0-)

          willing to fight DCFS and willing to risk having his or her own kids taken away over it, then that's fine with you.  I would be willing to bet that far more doctors would have been willing to accept her terms had DCFS not gotten involved and threatened legal action.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:17:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "The native of Coral Gables and mother (25+ / 0-)

          of three is now 41 weeks into her fourth pregnancy. Her other children were delivered by cesarean section as a matter of medical necessity but no medial reason has been given to suggest she needs one in this case"

          So, they're doing a c-section for medical reasons but they can't tell the person they want to have the surgery what they are?

          "On July 10 she received a letter from the chief financial officer of the hospital warning her that she would be reported to the Department of Children and Family services and that they would seek a court order to allow them to perform a c-section if she sought care in their hospital regardless of her refusal to consent.

          If the decisions are being made on purely medical grounds, why is the hospital's chief financial officer sending her letters?  And what medical expertise can Children and Family Services provide?

        •  Woah, fella. It's the coercion and threats that (12+ / 0-)

          way out of line here. Not this Diary.

          Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

          by Catskill Julie on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 07:28:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And if every patient did what every doctor told (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          white blitz, Miang

          them to do--we wouldn't have stopped horrible unnecessary practices like Episiotomies. We would still be advised and coerced into taking BC Pills for PCOS.

          You are a GUY! And you have NO Freaking IDEA how fucked up the medical system is to and at women period.

          It's called Institutional Gender Bias. And it's a major problem, a feature not a bug. And it plays a big part in this and similar stories.

          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:43:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You have hit the Nail (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Penny GC, Joieau, anon004, FloridaSNMOM

        on the head - It's all about the $$$$$$$$$

        U.S. Navy '64-'85 | The man who knows and knows he knows not is a wise man.. - The ink of scholars is worth more than the blood of martyrs.

        by OpherGopher on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 06:40:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Every situation is unique. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tbirchard

        I don't think you should assume that because your friend had ONE c-section, then one vaginal delivery, that it would necessarily mean it would be OK for this woman who had multiple c-sections previously.

        I think we don't have all the facts here.

    •  I'm sorry, I can't help trying out this kind of (6+ / 0-)

      scenario but reversing genders.

      No way something like this could happen to men. 80% of lawmakers are men, as are most hospital presidents, CEOs etc. Or if most people in the world in power were women, I can't imagine this happening.

      I'm not demonizing men but am angry at them as people for their obtuseness around their obtuseness. It is in general easier for humans to crawl into the shoes of people like themselves. So obviously women understand women's plights better than men, and vice versa, very largely.

      Men in power would understand a man's plight and would put him first and think it obviously outrageous to suggest he should risk surgery and have his abdomen cut open when it may not be necessary

      Note that it would be needed most likely only if it came to that point. Thousand of women have vaginal birth after C section successfully. This is an experienced pregnant woman. She understands she might need one.

      The hospital wants to cut into her body for liability reasons. What a crock of crap.

      Why don't they make her sign some document that they won't hold doctor/hospital responsible IF it is determined that the baby was harmed because C section wasn't done from the start of labor?

      •  yet I should add (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Penny GC, Jojos Mojo

        I haven't studied details of case. Some below say she went to other MDs who refused her. That's different, it makes it a medical high risk situation if so, not a hospital refusing because their legal dept doesn't want to risk the liability as it isn't worth the financial compensation.

      •  Its like asking the hawk to feel sympathy for the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Voiceless

        grouse.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:49:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, it's the woman's doctors who impose. (0+ / 0-)

      You have to find a doctor willing to do a VAC and with malpractice insurance being what it is, few will do it.

      So if you're on Medicaid, for example, you're at the mercy of the doctors taking Medicaid payments.  They're not likely to stick their neck out and take a risk.

      In managed care like Kaiser, forget about it.

    •  It's not the government, its insurance companies (0+ / 0-)

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  VBAC for me too (0+ / 0-)

      I delivered my 2nd & 3rd children naturally. My OB had no qualms about letting me try natural birth after c-section, even though my 1st weighed 10 lbs at birth. I was glad that #s 2 & 3 both came over 3 weeks early (water broke), or they would have been huge, too.

  •  Terrifying and enraging both. (10+ / 0-)

    Another facet of the anti choice movement.  Here is an excellent link you might like.

    http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/

    I'm what Willis is talking about.

    by pitbullgirl65 on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 04:43:37 PM PDT

  •  No that insurance will pay without the child be... (6+ / 0-)

    No that insurance will pay without the child being in "fetal distress" its for the money!!!

  •  It's natural for only a man and a woman to wed (4+ / 0-)

    So logically it's unnatural to have a vaginal birth, but natural to have a caesarian.  

  •  VBAC's just need to be carefully monitored (6+ / 0-)

    like any other birth.

    My aunt had a c-section with her first child. The incision was made horizontal. For her second child, the incision was made vertical. So for the longest time, she had a cross to bear on her abdomen. At that time, VBAC's were rare and the recommendation was to err on the side of once a c-section, always c-section. I am sure if she had her second child today, there would be a doctor (or multiple doctors) who has seen the studies and meta analysis about VBAC's to give her the sound advice and options.

    Now I don't understand why a financial guy of a hospital would threaten... If it were multiple doctors who signed that letter and cited their references... then sure?

    I really am just not going to have children.

    Why hello there reality, how are you doing?

    by Future Gazer on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 09:26:48 PM PDT

    •  I didn't see that this came from a hospital CFO's (0+ / 0-)

      office, but it doesn't seem entirely strange to me. They're an administrator and it sounds like this issue was elevated to admin, which isn't terribly common. Not unheard of, but not common. Usually, shit has already gone sideways at the doc and patient level if admin is getting into the mix.

      Hospital CFOs and CEOs can have similar duties and job description overlap in some facilities.

      "Reality divorced the wingnuts after the wingnuts were discovered to be fucking goofy." - DWG

      by Jojos Mojo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 04:17:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Probably a no answer (0+ / 0-)

      Most OBs would not recommend a VBAC attempt for a woman with a prior vertical incision on the uterus. They have a higher risk of uterine rupture.

  •  Normally I would (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jojos Mojo

    Agree with you.  The government should not tell a pregnant woman that she is required to have a surgery.  In this case, it is a high risk delivery (three previous c-sections) and the standard care is a c-section.   If she died  during child birth or the child died or suffered injury she could rightfully sue them for their neglect.  The hospital that she wants services from is telling her no not the government.

    I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

    by gtghawaii on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 12:01:21 AM PDT

    •  Read the Silent Knife. It is not high risk simply (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC, Yonit, GreenMother

      because she has had them before. Only if she previously had the horizontal-type (done long ago until they found it heals better vertically) and even then future gazer just above describes her aunt's experience.
          The woman in this story knew she'd had problems before and knew she might again. She just wanted to try nature's course- not fight to the death to avoid one.

      We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

      by nuclear winter solstice on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:16:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The risk of uterine rupture increases if you've (3+ / 0-)

        had two or more C-sections and are past the 40th week of pregnancy (from vbac.com).

      •  The problems were definitely real (0+ / 0-)

        in her case - as her attempt at a vaginal birth failed and she had to a fourth c-section.

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

        by lcbo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 03:03:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem she had wasn't with the cs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nuclear winter solstice

          though.
          The problem she had, per her statement, was that her labor didn't progress.

          Some women get just so far in labor and get stuck. If it was not a vbac the MD might decide to wait as long as the baby is not in distress. With  vbac if the labor does not progress the MD will not be willing to wait it out and a pit drip would not be an option. It would be another cs.

          She wanted to try. The new hospital let her try.
          When it didn't work she agreed to the cs.

          The only thing that made this a problem was the attitude and threats of the first hospital.

          •  We don't know (0+ / 0-)

            stalled labour wasn't the reason for her previous c-sections. Or that a weakened uterine muscle from those previous surgeries wasn't the reason for this one.

            At any rate there's too much we don't know IMHO about this particular situation for me to feel comfortable working up a bunch of umbrage about this woman's rights being abrogated.

            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

            by lcbo on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:12:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Miang, pl chk kosmail. Meanwhile, some ammo: (11+ / 0-)

    (free registration needed at Medscape to read professional medical journal articles):

    C-Sections, Necessary or Not, Increase Maternal Morbidity and Mortality

    Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery (reference article)

    Women who have had a C-section can often opt for natural childbirth next time...the actual risk of uterine rupture [is] about a 0.5% to 1%...

    Longer Labor Okay to Avoid Cesarean, New Guidelines Say (Feb 2014)

    Training Reduces Cesarean Delivery and Neonatal Morbidity

    Cesarean Deliveries Level Off After 12-Year-Long Rise

    Cesarean Delivery Rates Vary Up to 15-Fold in US Hospitals

    Cesarean delivery...may negatively influence gut bacteria development in newborns, possibly exposing them to multiple health risks later in life

    Caesarean Delivery May Predispose Children to Obesity

    Doula support in childbirth is associated with a 40% decrease in cesarean deliveries among Medicaid recipients, according to results from a study published online February 14 (2013) in the American Journal of Public Health.

    Midwifery Care Safe, Less Costly, Even for High-Risk Moms

    (Reuters Health) Mar 23, 2012 - Putting a halt to medically unnecessary cesarean sections could save more than $2 billion a year worldwide, a new study estimates.

    (Reuters Health) Aug 09, 2013 - A simple, validated model can predict successful trial of labor after Cesarean section (TOLAC) at the time of admission for delivery, according to a new study.

    [staffing differences on weekdays vs weekends & h]ospital obstetric volume may affect the risk for asphyxia at birth and the likelihood of cesarean delivery, according to a new study published in the September issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology (2013)

    [Potential] Complications [resulting from c-section delivery]

       Approximately 2-fold increase in maternal mortality and morbidity with cesarean delivery relative to a vaginal delivery[10] : Partly related to the procedure itself, and partly related to conditions that may have led to needing to perform a cesarean delivery
        Infection (eg, postpartum endomyometritis, fascial dehiscence, wound, urinary tract)
        Thromboembolic disease (eg, deep venous thrombosis, septic pelvic thrombophlebitis)
        Anesthetic complications
        Surgical injury (eg, uterine lacerations; bladder, bowel, ureteral injuries)
        Uterine atony
        Delayed return of bowel function
    •  Check out also ICAN (0+ / 0-)

      Internationa C-section Awareness Network

      The International Cesarean Awareness Network, Inc. (ICAN) is a nonprofit
      organization whose mission is to improve maternal-child health by preventing
      unnecessary cesareans through education, providing support for cesarean
      recovery, and promoting Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC).

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:51:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wonder if the pleadings are available to read. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, white blitz, jlms qkw

    Wonder if the pleadings are available to read.

  •  As a man, I am completely disappointed (6+ / 0-)

    in hearing that women do not have a voice in the birth of their children.  I think that political women should make this kind of news front and center whenever they appear (Democratic ones, not so much) on the tee vee.  Even if they are talking about a Farm Bill or something unrelated, toss that nugget in so that it makes the main stream media as uncomfortable as I now am.  This is just another reason for universal healthcare.  Lets go with it.  Thanks for the diary, even if it makes me mad as hell.

  •  This is just an outgrowth of (9+ / 0-)

    the war on reproductive rights.  The more the fetus is seen as the human and the mother the mere receptacle of that human, the more women will have zero voice in any aspect of reproduction.

    Without reproductive rights the human status of women is significantly reduced; she will, in effect have no rights when a fetus is present.

    Manufacturing outrage; the only manufacturing jobs Republicans won't outsource.

    by get the red out on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:49:46 AM PDT

  •  No surprise. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, OldDragon, GreenMother

    As soon as we all accept the fact that our uteruses are not ours, all of this silly hand wringing will go away.

    My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

    by martydd on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 07:42:40 AM PDT

  •  Actually, the rights of pregnant women ARE limited (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caryltoo

    by the needs of the baby -- and if she's really 41 weeks as the first sentence says, then it is a baby.

    When you get pregnant, your "rights" are actually limited by the fact that you are responsible for another human being -- and that will continue for quite a long time. As a non-parent I can go out on the town whenever I want to; as a parent, I can only do so if I arrange alternate responsible care for my child. When I was pregnant, there were things that I could not do, either by rules (ride on the scary Disneyland rides, fly on airplanes after week 35) or by medical advice to protect the baby (very limited or no alcohol, not fasting even on religious holidays, not taking certain medications that were otherwise fine, not visiting a friend who had what might be rubella).

    In the Cesarian-vs-VBAC debate, doctors vary a lot, and the majority would strongly recommend a Cesarian in this situation. That's not to say it's the only possible answer, but it isn't completely unreasonable. A woman who wants a VBAC needs to locate a sympathetic medical team as soon as she gets pregnant, not fight about it through the courts at week 41.

    I trust that by now this case is moot -- after 41 weeks almost any doctor or midwife, even the most progressive and woman-centered, will induce labor or schedule a C-section.

    •  Provided the calculation of the conception date is (0+ / 0-)

      correct.

      Unless the doctor personally witnessed the moment of conception (as in an artificial insemination) it's most often a guess.  And sometimes wrong.

  •  The barriers to VBAC are doctors & the hospital's (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yonit, white blitz, kat herder, OldDragon

    perceived risk of malpractice action. We are coming back to a once a c-section always a c-section country. That isn't how other countries do it for multiple reasons. VBAC is associated with higher fetal complications and death. Repeat cesareans is associated with much higher maternal complications and death with increase significantly at the 4th c-section. Socially and from a risk management position, this hospital and physician has chosen to mitigate the risks of the child over the risks to the mother. The mother just wants her wishes for a trial labor to be respected. Due to HIPAA, we don't know why the doctor and hospital don't believe this woman is a good candidate for VBAC. She's portraying it as a capricious and arbitrary decision and if that was true, the courts were/are in error. It is a respectable medical decision to allow a trial labor.

    NIH wants more VBACs (Vaginal Birth After C-section) by allowing TOL (Trial of Labor). All this woman wants is a trial labor. The doctors are assuming she'll fail the trial and just want to save time and have a convenient, scheduled c-section. From a medical ethics point of view, that's shaky ground.

    I fault the doctor in this situation for not being honest early on in the prenatal care. I'm sure the mother said all along she wanted to attempt a VBAC and the doctor didn't tell her it was against his typical medical advice and (this was the real issue) against the hospital's risk management policies. The doctor likely placated her thinking they would get her to go along with the c-section (I've seen this behavior in doctors from time to time). This didn't need to get to the court system and frankly, it will adversely impact both the doctor's and (Bayfront Health's) hospital's reputation for patient centered care.

    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never has and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

    by JDWolverton on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 08:34:22 AM PDT

    •  You seem to assume the doctor is male (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      white blitz, JDWolverton

      With your pronoun usage.  Her doctors, Aimee Young and Nay Hoche, seem to be quite female.  The opinion denying Goodall's request for a restraining order notes that her doctors told her that they were opposed to a trial labor for medical reasons.  

      It also notes that she looked around but was unable to find a doctor willing to cooperate with her request for VBAC.  (This may or may not related to a report that the doctor in the area who specialized in VBACs was on medical leave from his practice).  Given this and that it seems to be the case that the hospital performs a non-zero number of VBACs, it is should be considered a definite possibility that there were patient-specific reasons for denying Godall's preference.  

      Jumping immediately to whatever interpretation fits a narrative of a "war on women" is like jumping to the conclusion that it must be Muslims if there is a possible act of terrorism;  even if it ends up being true, it's still a mistake to be too hasty in one's assumptions.

      •  Having a female doc is no guarantee of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        white blitz, benamery21, JDWolverton

        them being women friendly either.
        I have gone through that too many times. Going into a male dominated profession can leave a woman feeling she has to outmale the males which also means being more cruel and insensitive to other women than normal in order to prove herself to her male colleagues as worthy.

        I have also witnessed this behavior in the military as well.

        Doctors like to control, and it is a male dominated and paternal culture and that is reflected at every level.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:54:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good catch please substitute "their" for the (0+ / 0-)

        single "his" that I missed editing out before posting the comment.

        If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never has and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

        by JDWolverton on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:23:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  As to the more pertinent point (0+ / 0-)

        No Where In My Comment Do I Mention Any War on Women. You might note that I'm writing from a risk management point of view.

        If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never has and never will be. Thomas Jefferson

        by JDWolverton on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:26:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The hospital was going to violate EMTALA (9+ / 0-)

    The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which is a federal law that requires hospitals to admit anyone experiencing a medical emergency or presenting in active labor. It also requires the hospital to respect the patient's right to refuse treatment, and as others have pointed out, cesarean surgery is a treatment, labor and vaginal birth are physiological processes.

    Every appellate court that has ruled on the issue of court-ordered cesareans or other forced medical treatment for pregnant women has found that not only is it a violation of a longstanding body of law respecting the absolute right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment, but that forced surgery or other potentially lifesaving treatment on behalf of the fetus violates the rights of children who have already been born, whose parents can't be compelled to donate organs or undergo other medical procedures on their behalf.

    The larger context to this story, as others have pointed out, is that hospitals across the country instituted bans on vaginal birth after cesarean in the wake of a 1999 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist's opinion paper that recommended hospitals offering a trial of labor to women with a previous cesarean have 24/7 anesthesia available due to liability concerns, which is a costly service.

    Meanwhile, where did those liability concerns emerge from? A wave of lawsuits in the 1990s after VBAC became the standard of care once the research began to show that the risks and benefits outweighed repeat cesareans for both mothers and babies, with one caveat: as long as labor proceeds physiologically, without artificial augmentation or induction. That piece of the research was widely ignored and there were a rash of cases where women undergoing a trial of labor were induced and augmented with drugs like Cytotec and Pitocin without being informed of the increased risk of uterine rupture and either they, their babies, or both, died.

    So it is essentially thanks to widespread medical malpractice in the 1990s that many physicians and hospitals were found liable for that, instead of following the research and instituting evidence-based policies around VBAC, hospitals across the country have decided it's easier and cheaper to simply deprive laboring women of their right to refuse medically unnecessary surgery and force them to undergo repeat cesareans whether they need to or not.

    In many areas of the country choosing a different hospital is not an option because they too have a so-called VBAC ban or they are too far for a laboring woman to safely travel to. Restrictive VBAC policies are a major driving force behind the recent increase in out-of-hospital births, an unintended consequence that the medical community is fighting hard against when they really should be examining some of the reasons, such as widespread VBAC bans, behind it.

  •  One more story (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz, GreenMother

    To make me glad that I chose never to have children, and that I'm very close to finished with the whole business.

     I am determined to get through menopause before Rich White Christian Lunatics decide it is a form of abortion and make it illegal.

  •  Yes. Pregnant Women like Veterans are useful (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FloridaSNMOM, OldDragon

    political props that are better seen and not heard.

    I take it you didn't get the memo? (snark)

    Behind all this is an insurance company threatening the hospital if it violates what the company has decided is protocol.

    Yet another third or fourth party that comes between a woman and her ability to determine her own faith and what happens to her own body.

    She would be better off leaving the state.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Tue Jul 29, 2014 at 05:13:46 PM PDT

  •  Doctors are little tin gods (0+ / 0-)

    I fully support a patient's right to bodily self-determination.

    P.S. Even if the patient is, you know, of the female persuasion.

    Iron sharpens Iron. Normal is a dryer setting. STOP illegal immigration NOW! -- Make it LEGAL. If Corporations are People--Let's draft them.

    by benamery21 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 04:29:55 AM PDT

  •  AND THE WAR ON WOMEN CONTINUES (0+ / 0-)
  •  This is BS (0+ / 0-)

    These people are acting like Nazi's. They are all ready doing forced sterilization on men and women. Who the hell do they think they are. First a war on My Constitutional right to have a abortion if I need one. Now this. These people always talk about how big Government is killing Democracy. Well they just want what they believe. It has nothing to do with big government as far as they are concerned. We can't keep doing this. This is not a democracy anymore. This is abuse of power. Putting power over other people to do what you want. We are not your SLAVES. I do realize that Florida is a SLAVE STATE. The racism, the bigots, and murders who are cowards still believe with a the Slave State Mentality. You people in power in Florida and all the other places are so out to lunch> I can't want til the South Falls AGAIN. Then maybe we can throw you jerks out. You Men are a$$holes. I am sick to death of men doing everything and taking NO RESPONSIBILITY for ANY of their ACTIONS. Men out there really believe they have it going on. Go away. You are gun toting idiots without a clue.

  •  hypocrisy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dewolf99

    This has been going on for years; it's just getting worse, now.

    The best part, not even mentioned here? Doctors who have done this, where a caesarian was forced, have sometimes ended up with the child dying.  When that happens...that's it. There's no lawsuit against THEM. Only against the mothers if they don't agree to it.

    Because birth is considered to have a naturally high risk of potential death, as I understand it, so any time a woman or infant dies during birth, aside from egregious negligence, the doctor is pretty much never considered at fault.

    The courts are absolutely the ones at fault here. Doctors couldn't get away with this if we didn't have a court system where a patient's rights aren't being eroded as though they were children and the medical community was a parental figure.

    It's not just labor and birth, either.  As an example, there have been cases where a doctor recommended riddlin for a child diagnosed with ADHD, and when the parents refused, they were successfully charged with child neglect.  

    •  adhd drugs (0+ / 0-)

      what's worse is when schools tell you that you have to put your kid on those meds. That's against the law (at least in WI where I was when 2 teachers & a counselor told me that my son had to go on meds). btw, it's ritalin, although riddlin' is a good substitute lol

  •  i had 3 emergency c sections (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dewolf99

    they're a bitch to recover from. major abdominal surgery. i totally understand why she'd try to avoid it, and agree to it only if complications required it.

    and while you're recovering, you have to take care of a newborn baby!

    i don't think men would like to be treated the way women are. it's insane.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site