Health

Rant

ACLU to defend pregnant woman

Posted 33 months ago|4 comments|941 views
Written by
The ACLU has agreed to defend a Florida woman's rights to make her own medical decisions.

Samantha Burton (mother of two young children) had developed signs of miscarriage early in her pregnancy, and was ordered to permanent bed rest by the hospital. She objected, stating that with two children to support, permanent bed rest wasn't possible. When she asked to be discharged or transfered to another hospital, the hospital REFUSED the request because "it was not in the best interest of the fetus," essentially committing Ms. Burton involuntarily to their care.

The move was upheld by the Circuit Court of Leon County who, in addition to committing her against her will, ordered her to undergo any and all medical treatments deemed necessary by the "treating physician of her unborn fetus" to save her fetus, holding that "the ultimate welfare of the fetus overrode Ms. Burton's constitutional right to make medical decisions for herself."

After three days of forced medical confinement, doctors performed an emergency Cesarean section on Ms. Burton and discovered her fetus had already died in utero. She was released shortly after the surgery.

Suppose her doctor had decided to force her into hospitalization because she smoked or had high blood pressure? Imagine what would happen if any women unable or unwilling to follow medical advice were treated as criminals and involuntarily hospitalized during pregnancy. Suppose that medical advice extended to "healthy diet" or exercise? What about the case of drug users? Should they be essentially imprisoned during a pregnancy?

The potential ramifications of Florida's actions are huge and worth watching.

The ACLU believes her rights to personal privacy supercede medical advice. This woman has two young children and issues of care for them (not to mention making a living) were undoubtedly uppermost in her mind--evidently, the court is somehow more concerned with the unborn than three sentient individuals.

What do you think?
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
33 months ago: Donate, if you can, to the ACLU.

This is another example of the courts (and doctors) forcing their will upon the individual. We already have enough of that in this country.

Even if we go to a socialized medicine system, who is going to support the children of someone like this? The state? They will TAKE them and farm them out to a foster home or worse. Also, who pays this persons mortgage, utility bills and all the other bills that a family has? Do we just let the doctors and courts force us into bankruptcy and then loose all we have worked for?

Our prisons are overrun with inmates and now the courts want to force the hospitals to fill their beds against the wishes of the individual, this is wrong and whoever the judge was that thought it was a good idea is probably an activist, one that is not good for the public and this judge needs to be removed from office.
33 months ago: Out of curiosity what is you opinion on the Daniel Hauser case in Minnisota?
33 months ago: Are you asking me, Harshaw? If so, my opinion is that this is a different set of circumstances. As I recall, the boy had a chemo treatment and declared he didn't want another. (Of course, poor kid! Chemo makes us sick!) Then, his parents declared they were going to use "traditional" methods, rather than force their son back into more chemo.

Has anything else happened? Are you asking whether or not I think the government should intervene? It's a different situation because THIS minor child is (a) actually BORN and sentient and (b)may just be responding to fear of another series of chemo. My thought would be that the State has an interest in making sure the entire family knows the risks and potential outcome of cancer treatments. The State also has an interest in knowing if the family actually has a history of this "non-traditional religious belief," or if they're just grasping at straws. There are many reasons why they could be in denial and, if so, someone needs to ensure they really understand their son will die without treatment.

33 months ago: Yes I was asking you zoolady. As far as I know the case is over, and the boy is getting his treatment. However, prior to that he was removed from the home and then court ordered to get the treatment.

But a few points here. Many states prosecute mothers who abused drug while they were pregnant. (Alcohol included).

Likewise it is not uncommon for a person to be charged with double murder if they kill a woman when she is pregnant.

You yourself wrote an article calling for the sterilization and castration of child abusers and pedophiles.

Let's face it, some people are lousy parents and sometimes doctors or the state has to step in and look out for the best interest of the child.

The "Sentient" debate aside. It sounds like from the article that since the Doctors attempted an emergency C-Section then the baby, sentient or not, was certainly old enough to have a shot at surviving outside the womb.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.